Working during the study of the Administrative Code of 1987 is the major structural,

functional, as well as procedural principles of governance.

The Administrative Code, in fact, contains specific provisions on the organization,
powers, and general administration of departments, bureaus, and offices under the
executive branch of those agencies created under the Constitution, the rules on the
national budget, as well as guidelines for the exercise of administrative bodies or
agencies of their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers.
So, aside from the agency of the government or department bureau, government
offices, we have what we call government instrumentalities.
So, what is a government instrumentality and what are included in the term
government instrumentality?
It refers to an agency of the national government not integrated within the
department framework. It is vested with special sanctions or jurisdiction by
law. It is endowed with some, if not all, corporate powers administering special
funds and enjoying operational autonomy usually through a charter.
So, take note class that government instrumentality is created by law only. And
second, it is not a corporation or, in short, it is neither a stock or a non-stock
corporation.
So, aside from government instrumentality, you also have what we call regulatory
agency. So, it refers to any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to regulate,
administer, or adjudicate matters affecting substantial rights and interests of private
persons, and the principal power of which are exercised by a collective body such as
what you call your commission, boards, or counsel.
And I also made mention of a charter institution.
A charter institution refers to any agency organizer operating under a special
charter, from the very word charter. So, it is graded under a special charter, vested
by law of intentions, relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives.
We have, let's say, the target state university. We have the monetary authority of the
state. Those are two examples of charter institutions.
Government-owned or controlled corporation.
What is a government-owned or controlled corporation?
it is any agency organized either as a stock or a non-stock corporation. It is
vested with functions relating to public needs, whether governmental or proprietary in
nature, and owned by the government directly or through its instrumentalities, either
wholly or were applicable, as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at
least 51% of its capital stock. So, it is vested with functions relating to public
needs.
So, functions being performed by G.O.C.C.s.
So, they are relating to public needs.
In the era versus Alcalaklaas.
The court held that G.O.C.C. may perform either governmental or proprietary
functions or even both, depending on the purpose for which they have been
created.
So, take note of this.
If the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit, the
financial naturally is proprietary in nature. But if it is in the interest of health, safety, or
for the advancement of public good and welfare, affecting the public in general, then
the function is governmental.
Powers classified as proprietary are those intended for private advantage and
benefit.
But once it's concerned about public health, safety, public good and welfare, then it
follows that it is performing a governmental function.
So, what is the best test to determine whether a corporation is a G.O.C.C. rather?
A particular corporation is a government under controlled corporation or private in
nature. So, the court has the occasion to rule that, in the case of Campo Redondo
versus L.O.C., that the best test is to determine whether it is created by its own
charter, for the exercise of public function, or by incorporation under the
general corporation law.
So, those with special charter are government corporations subject to its
provisions and its employees are under, of course, the jurisdiction of the Civil
Service Commission.
The agency involved in this case, or the corporation involved in this Campo Redondo
case, is P.N.R.C., the National Railways.
So, the fact that P.N.R.C.'s charter was amended to vest it with authority to secure
loans, in short, it was granted the authority to secure loans, and be exempted from
payment of all duties, taxes, fees, and other charges was not impliedly, it was not
impliedly converted to a private corporation.
So, Kahit Nabinigeshan authority to loan, in fact, it was exempted from payment of
any form of taxes, duties, and other charges did not convert P.N.R.C. into a private
corporation.
So, what are the powers of administering bodies or agencies?
If administrative bodies or agencies perform quasi-legislative power, or what you
know as the power of subordinate legislation, or the rulemaking power, it also
performs quasi-legislative power of adjudication, otherwise known as the
adjudicatory powers, and also performs determinative power, or what we call
incidental powers.
So, what is quasi-legislative power?
It is practically the authority delegated by lawmaking body to the administrative body
to adopt rules and regulations intended to carry out the provisions of the law and
implement legislative policy, okay?
It does not involve the determination of the law, what the law shall be on. It simply
provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law.
Just like when the family code was passed, they came up with implementing rules
and regulations, just like also with the local government code, they came up with
implementing rules and regulations.
This issue with other laws passed by Congress, administrative bodies were
vested in the authority to issue implementing rules and regulations to serve as
what? Guidelines or limitations in the law.
So, what is important is that whenever implementing rules and regulations or
administrative regulations are issued, they cannot extend the law or amend a legal
enactment.
What is settled is that administrative regulations have always been in harmony
with the provisions of the law.
It seeks to, or it seeks to regulate or, provide guidelines, okay? They cannot also
override, but must remain consistent with the law.
They seek to apply and implement because there are only, or administrative
agencies are only intended to carry out or administrative regulations, rather, are
intended to carry out, not to supplant nor modify the law.
And quasi-judicial power, it is the power of administrative authorities to make
determinations of facts in the performance of their official duties and to apply the law
as they construe it to the facts so foul.
Note, but you have to note that the exercise of this function or power is only
incidental to the main function of administrative authorities, which is the enforcement
of law, okay?
I hope you still remember the test for valid delegation, which applies to the power to
promulgate administrative regulations. Let me just go back now before we discuss at
the quasi-judicial. Let me just go back to your quasi-legislative power.
The test of valid delegation, which applies to the power to promulgate administrative
regulations, must comply with the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.
In a way, just to refresh your memory class, when we speak of completeness test,
it should set forth the policy to be executed or carried out or implemented by
the delegate. Whereas sufficient standard test, sufficient standard means you
specify the limits of the delegate's authority and announce the legislative
policy and specify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.
So going back to your quasi-judicial power, would you consider most administrative
agencies,
let's take, for example, your commission on human rights, is vested with fact-finding
power?
Is fact-finding similar or the same as adjudication?
Do not forget, class, that fact-finding is not adjudication, okay?
So UCHR, does it have the power to adjudicate?
This was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of the one versus CHR.
I know you discussed this when you were in first year, particularly when you tackled
the provision on human rights, okay? So the Supreme Court, in resolving the issue
and whether the CHR has the power to adjudicate, the court said that the most that
may be considered to the commission is the way of adjudicating power.
It may investigate or receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claim of human rights violations involving civil and political rights, but fact-
finding is not adjudication. Its power is limited only to fact-finding or receiving
evidence or making findings of fact for any claim of human rights violation, okay?
It is not that fact-finding is not adjudication.
It cannot be likened to the judicial function of the Court of Justice or even a quasi-
judicial agency or official, because the function of receiving evidence and certain in
their form, the facts of a given controversy is not a judicial function properly
speaking.
To be considered such, the faculty of receiving evidence and making factual
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by authority of applying the law
to those factual conclusions. With the end, of course, the controversy may be
decided or determined authoritatively and finally and definitely subject to, of course,
appeal or any mode of review as may be provided by law.
In such fashion, according to the court, the commission does not have.
So I repeat, the commission on human rights does not have any adjudicatory
power. In fact, it also has no power to issue temporary restraining orders or writ of
preliminary injunction.
There were several attempts on the part of the C.H.R., but they issue injunction or
restraining orders, notwithstanding the fact that they are not vested with such
jurisdiction to issue TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.
In fact, in one case, there are cases of expert processing zone versus C.H.R.
The court discussed this particular constitutional provision which directed the C.H.R.
to provide for preventive measures and legal aid services.
So the underprivileged human rights have been violated or whose rights need
protection may not, according to the court, may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for, if it
were, of course, the intention of the framers of the constitution, they would have
expressly said.
So again, our, again, it's basic principle that jurisdiction is conferred only by the
constitution or by law. It is never derived by implication.
How about contempt power? Does C.H.R. exercise contempt power? And if, in the
affirmative, when may it be validly exercised by the commission on human rights?
So on its contempt power class, for contempt powers, the C.H.R. is constitutionally
authorized to adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure and, in fact, in a
site for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the rules of court.
Such power, however, leads to the type of passive, when can it be validly exercised,
should be understood to apply only to violation of its adopted operational guidelines
and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatory powers.
So I'd like you to read, again, your Simone versus C.H.R., okay?
Another example would be, it's good to commonly give up in a petition for annulment
of proclamation of a candidate. But here is a candidate, a current individual, and then
you find a petition to annul the proclamation of the winning candidate.
This would require or would involve the exercise of the government's quasi-judicial
power or the power to press upon judgment or discretion so that it is of judicial
nature or character, but does not, however, involve the exercise of the sanctions of
the judge.
So practically it is limited only to determination of existence of manifest errors
in the certificate of candidacy, okay?
Now let us go to the incidental power or your determinative power.
So determinative powers may either be enabling, directing, dispensing, semi-
examining, or equitable powers.
Last, you just have to excuse me, no?
I can limit my lecture only for 20 minutes and then proceed with, rest and then
proceed with another 20-minute lecture, annul nalano, because I cannot strain my
voice and I still advise to rest, but we have missed a lot now, so let us, yes.
So you just have to bear with me.
Excuse me.
So let us now go to enabling powers.
So these are the powers that permit the doing of an act which the law undertakes to
regulate and would be unlawful without governmental approval.
Example, you know, my license is not issuance of licenses to engage in a particular
business. Before you can put up a business, you have to go to your LGU, you apply
for a business permit, then you have to register the same with DTI, you have to
register it with BIR.
So that is your enabling powers.
Directing powers are those that involve the corrective powers of public utility
commissions, the powers of assessment under the revenue laws, your separate
reparations under public utility laws, and words under work means compensation
laws, and powers of abstract determination, such as definition, evaluation,
classification, or even fact-finding.
That is the power of assessment of the BIR, or the Bureau of Justice.
Dispensing powers, on the other hand, are exemplified by the authority to exempt
from or relax a general prohibition, or authority to relieve from an affirmative duty.
So its difference from licensing power, licensing that, dispensing power, sanctions, a
deviation from a standard.
Again, I am assuming ordinances.
The value, the authority of zoning, towards the other provisions in the zoning
ordinances, or another one would be the authority of the acceptance board of the
Philippine Army to relieve certain persons from military training.
Similarly powers are those that apply compulsion, or force against persons or
property, to equitrate the legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such
action.
It is usually without notice and hearing. One very good example is your abatement of
nuisance. It is not known from novices, per se, yet.
For examining the strength or levy of property of delinquent taxpayers, or whenever
you are in health departments, non-LGU schools, or conduct health inspections.
Examining powers, or what to call also your investigatory power, consist in
requiring production of books, papers, etc. or even the abundance of witnesses and
compelling their testimony.
Note, however, that the power to compel attendance of witnesses is not inherent in
administrative bodies.
I am going to forget that.
But an administrative officer authorizes take testimony or evidence is then authorized
to administer both solemn witnesses or require production of documents.
Except for El Zafunya, we don't forget whenever Congress conducts input in aid of
legislation, where attendance of witnesses is mandatory. Likewise, the power to
punish contempt class must be expressly granted.
The papa may express grant of contempt powers to the administrative body. And
when so granted, it may be exercised only by the administrative body when it is
actually performing a quasi-judicial function.
Or, in short, it cannot exercise its power of contempt when it is in the exercise of its
quasi-legislative power. That is, the power of contempt is authorized only when it
is specially granted to the administrative body. And the administrative body is in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial power.
Equitable powers, example pala would be your pomegranate.
Equitable powers would pertain to the power to determine the law upon a particular
state of facts.
It is the first of the right to and must consider and make proper application of the
rules of equity.
In the traditional corporations, when they have the power to appoint a receiver for the
power to issue interruptions on the part of administrative agencies performing quasi-
judicial powers.
We will proceed next to administrative rules and regulations.
We just have to take a break and then we will resume with our administrative rules
and regulations.