Upload File

epa-compilation of digests

307
U A A G B T p p T c m f c I W H P T t i T i a t A r i t n UST FACULTY ADMINISTRAT Alcaraz, Atienza, General Prin BUSTONERA, HON. EX COMMUNICA OFFICE (LTPORT ZON DIZON, UN To be valid, an promulgation procedure; (3) Three separat constitutionali motor vehicles avor and dec court. Hence th SSUE: Whether Artic HELD: PETITIONS AR The subject m the domestic i mportation of The proscripti nclusion of sa applicati n of o the issuance b As long as the remedied will mproving the the avowed p national econo Y OF CIVIL LA TIVE LAW, LA Binay, Brillante nciples C. XECUTIVE SE ATIONS (DOT O), COLLECTNE, Petitioner NITED AUCTI re n administrat must be auth It ust be wi m t te actions w ity of Article 2 s anywhere in clared EO 156 his petition. cle 2, Section 3 RE PARTIALLY matter of the la industry. EO f used cars to ion in the imp aid zone with an administra ecomes void, e used motor v not arise. To e general econ urpose of RA omy. AW 2A 20112 W ON PUBLIC s, Bustonera, Ca CRETARY, HO TC), COMMISS OR OF CUSTO rs, vs. SOUTH IONEERS, INC epresented bG.R tive issuance, s horized by the thin the scope were filed by 2, Section 3.1 o n the country, 6 repugnant t 3.1 of EO 156 i Y GRANTED. aws authorizin 156, however the Freeport, portation of u hin the ambit ative issuance not only for b vehicles do no apply the pro nomy of the co A 7227 which 012 C OFFICERS & abanting, De Alb ADMINIS ON. SECRETA SIONER OF CU OMS, SUBIC B HWING HEAVC., represente y its Presiden R. No. 164171 such as an ex e legislature;( of the authori respondent of Executive O including tho o the Constitu is valid? ng the Presid r, exceeded th which RA 722 used motor ve of the prohib e modifies exis eing ultra vire ot enter the cu oscription to t ountry, the ap is to create a ELECTION LA an, Lacsina, Liu, STRATIVE ARY OF THE D USTOMS, ASSI AY FREE POR Y INDUSTRIE ed by its Pres nt MARIANO Februa xecutive order, (2) It must be ity given by the business org Order (EO) 15 se made insid ution. The ap ent to regulat he scope of its 27, considers t ehicles should bition is an in sting laws or es, but also for ustoms territo the Freeport w pplication of th a market that —oOo— AW Case Diges Mabulac, Nado LAW DEPARTMENT ISTANT SECR RT ZONE, AND ES, INC., repre ident DOMIN C. SONON, Re ary 20, 2006 , must comply e promulgated e legislature; a ganizations a 6 which impo de the Freepor ppellate court te or forbid im s application to some exten d be operativ nvalid modific exceeds the in r being unreas ory, the injury would not ser he importatio t would draw sts onga, Paguio, Pla T OF TRANSP RETARY, LAN D CHIEF OF L esented by its NIC SYTIN, an espondents. y with the foll d in accordan and(4) I mus t t against petiti oses a ban on t rt Zones. The t sustained the mportation of by extending nt, a foreign te ve only outsid cation of RA 7 ntended scope sonable. y or harm sou rve the purpo n ban in the F w investors an aton, Robles, Var 1 PORTATION A D TRANSPOR TO, SUBIC BA s President JO d MICROVAN lowing requisi nce with the p t be reasonable oners questio the importatio trial court rule e findings of used motor v the prohibiti rritory. de the Freepor 7227. Indeed, e, as in the ins ught to be pre se of the EO. Freeport woul nd ultimately rgas | AND RTATION AY FREE OSE T. N, INC., ites:(1) Its prescribed e. oning the on of used ed in their the lower vehicles, is ion on the rt and the when the stant case, evented or Instead of ld subvert boost the

Upload: belly08

Post on 21-Apr-2015

527 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

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

ADMINIS STRATIVE LAW

GeneralPrin G nciples BUSTONERA,C B C. HON.EX XECUTIVESECRETARY,HO ON.SECRETA ARYOFTHED DEPARTMENT TOFTRANSP PORTATIONA AND 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 ntMARIANO C.SONON,Re espondents. G.R R.No.164171Februa ary20,2006 To T be valid, an administrat n tive issuance, s such as an ex xecutive order,, must comply with the foll y lowing requisi ites:(1) Its promulgation must be auth p horized by the legislature;( It must be promulgated in accordan with the p e (2) e d nce prescribed procedure;(3)Itmustbewithinthescopeoftheauthori ygivenbythe p t it elegislature;a and(4)Itmust tbereasonable e. Three separat actions were filed by respondent business org T te w ganizations a against petitioners questio oning the constitutionali c ityofArticle2 2,Section3.1o ofExecutiveO Order(EO)156whichimpo osesabanont theimportatio onofused motorvehicles m sanywherein nthecountry,includingthosemadeinsid detheFreepor rtZones.Thet trialcourtrule edintheir favor and dec f clared EO 156 repugnant to the Constitu 6 ution. The ap ppellate court sustained the findings of the lower e court.Henceth c hispetition. ISSUE: WhetherArtic W cle2,Section3 3.1ofEO156i isvalid? HELD: H PETITIONSAR P REPARTIALLY YGRANTED. Thesubjectm T matterofthela awsauthorizin ngthePresidenttoregulat teorforbidim mportationof usedmotorv vehicles,is the t domestic i industry. EO 156, however exceeded th scope of its application by extending the prohibiti on the r, he s ion importationof fusedcarstotheFreeport,whichRA722 27,considerst tosomeexten nt,aforeignterritory. The T proscripti in the imp ion portation of u used motor ve ehicles should be operativ only outsid the Freepor and the d ve de rt inclusion of sa zone with the ambit of the prohib aid hin bition is an in nvalid modific cation of RA 7 7227. Indeed, when the applicationof anadministra a ativeissuance emodifiesexis stinglawsor exceedsthein ntendedscope e,asintheins stantcase, theissuancebecomesvoid,notonlyforbeingultravire t es,butalsofor rbeingunreas sonable. Aslongasthe A eusedmotorv vehiclesdono otenterthecu ustomsterrito ory,theinjury yorharmsou ughttobepre eventedor remediedwill notarise.To applythepro r oscriptiontot theFreeportw wouldnotser rvethepurposeoftheEO. Insteadof improvingthe egeneralecon nomyoftheco ountry,theap pplicationofth heimportationbanintheF Freeportwoul ldsubvert the t avowed purpose of RA 7227 which is to create a market that would draw investors an ultimately boost the A a t w nd nationalecono n omy. oOo Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

1|

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

It I is an axiom in administra ative law that administrativ authorities should not a arbitrarily and capriciou in the t ve s act usly is ssuanceofrul lesandregula ations.Tobev valid,suchrule esandregulationsmustbe reasonablean ndfairlyadap ptedtothe endinview.Ifs e showntobear rnoreasonabl lerelationtot thepurposesfo forwhichtheyareauthorize edtobeissued, d,thenthey mustbeheldto m obeinvalid. Professional R P Regulation Co ommission (P PRC) issued R Resolution No 105 as par of its "Add o. rt ditional Instru uctions to Examiness," to all those ap E o pplying for ad dmission to ta the licens ake sure examinat tions in accou untancy. The r resolution prohibits exam p minees from attending re eview classes, lectures or conferences of similar na , ature, includi ing taking reviewers, notes or any re r eview materia of any kind three days prior to the examination day. Violators will be al sanctionedacc s cordingtoSec c.8,Art.IIIoft theRulesandRegulationso oftheCommission. Petitionerrevieweesfileda P acomplaintfo orinjunction, beforetheRe egionalTrialC Court(RTC)o ofManila,with haprayer withtheissuan w nceofawrito ofapreliminar ryinjunctiona againstrespon ndentPRCtorestrainthela atterfromenf forcingthe abovemention a nedresolution nandtodecla arethesameu unconstitution nal. PRCmovedto P odismissthec caseonthegr roundoflack ofjurisdictio on,butwasde enied.Howeve er,theCourto ofappeals (CA)reversedtheRTCandg ( grantedthesa ame.Hencethispetition. ISSUE(s): 1. Canth heRTCreview wtheresolutio onsofthePRCdespitethest tatusofbeingcoequalbodies? 2. IsRes solution105v validandreaso onable? HELD: H PetitionisGRA P ANTED. RTCHasJuris R sdiction Contrarytoth C hepositionof theCA,thePR RC,asdirected dunderPresi identialDecre eeNo.223isa attachedtotheOfficeof thePresidentf t forgeneraldir rectionandco oordination.W Wellsettledinourjurisprud denceistheviewthatevenactsofthe OfficeofthePr O residentmaybereviewedb bythetheReg gionalTrialCo ourt.Asexplai inedinMedall lavsSayo,beingsubject tojudicialrevi t iewdoesnotm maketheExec cutiveinferior rtothecourts s,butbecause ethelawisab bovetheChief Executive f himself,andth h hecourtsseek konlytointerp pret,applyorimplementit. . As A a general r rule, the CA exercises exclusive appella jurisdiction over all fina judgments, decisions, re e ate n al , esolutions, orders,orawa o ardsofquasijudicialagenc cies,suchast thePRC.Howe ever,thereha astobeafina alorderorrul lingwhich resultedfrom proceedingsw r whereinthea administrative ebodyinvolve edexercisedi itsquasijudic cialfunctions. Thisdoes not n cover rule and regulat es tions of gener applicabili issued by the administrative body to implement its purely ral ity administrative a epoliciesandfunctionslike eResolutionN No.105whichwasadoptedbytherespon ndentPRCasa ameasure topreservetheintegrityofl t licensureexam minations. Validityofthe V eResolutionAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

2|

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

Under the prin U nciples of adm ministrative law in force in this jurisdictio decisions o administrat w on, of tive officers sh not be hall disturbedbyth d hecourts,exce eptwhenthefo formerhaveac ctedwithouto orinexcessof theirjurisdicti ion,orwithgr raveabuse ofdiscretion.F o Findingsofad dministrativeo officialsandag gencieswhoh haveacquired expertisebeca ausetheirjuri isdictionis confined to sp c pecific matters are general accorded n only respe but at tim even final s lly not ect mes lity if such fin ndings are supported by substantial ev s vidence and a controlling on the revi are g iewing author rities because of their ackn nowledged expertiseinthe e efieldsofspec cializationtow whichtheyareassigned. PetitionerBiak P kNaBatoMin ningCo.filedw withtheBure eauofMines( (BM)theappli icationforlea aseandapetit tionforan orderoflease surveyofits miningclaims o s.However,it treceivedano oticeofthelet tteroftheDir rectorofMine esrefusing toissuetheor t rderofleasesurveybecause etheareasco overedbytheminingclaims swerealleged dlyinconflict withfour (4) ( other grou of mining claims purp ups g portedly own by private respondent BalatocLub ned e ts buagan Mines Inc. and s, MountainMines,Inc. M Inlieuofthis, petitionercon ntestsanddis sputestherigh htofBalatocL LubuaganMin nes,Inc.toele even(11)miningclaims and the right of Mountain Mines, Inc. to another nine (9) minin claims. It also questio a n ng oned the reco onstitution proceedingsin p nMACCases Nos.V79and dV80byclai imingthatthe etwo(2)deedsofsaleove erthe88lode eclaimsin favorofMountainMines,In f nc.andtheoth hertwo(2)de eedsofsaleov ver52lodecla aimsofBalato ocLubuaganM Mines,Inc. werefake,fictitiousormanu w ufactured.Fin nally,whileits sprotestwasb beingheard,it tfiledwiththeBMamotion nclaiming thatBalatocLubuaganMine t es,Inc.andM MountainMine es,Inc.'smen hadenteredt theareainco ontroversyby forceand have been mo h olesting, haras ssing and thr reatening peti itioner's supp posed worker in the area The Bureau of Mines rs a. u issueda restra ainingorderd directingbothpartiestodes sistfromperf forminganyfu urthermining gactivitiesint theareain controversy. c TheBMordere T edanocularin nspectionoft theplace.Ittu urnedoutthat tpetitionersc claimofharass smentisfalseandlifted therestraining t gorder. Bytheendof theyear,the DirectorofMinesruledaga B ainstthepetit tioneranddec claredthatpr rivaterespond dentshave better rights t the 170 mining claims. O appeal to the Secretary of Agricultur and Natura Resources, petitioner b to On y re al questioned the validity of the first ocula inspection. The secretar granted its motion and o q t ar ry ordered anoth ocular her inspection.Ho owever,these econdinspecti ionteamconf firmedtherep portofthefirs stinspectiont teamandalso oreported thatBiakNaB t BatoMiningCo ompanydespi iteopportunit tyaffordedwa asnotabletos showitsexact tlocationinth hearea. Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

3|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts TheSecretary gaveitsdecis T sionadverset topetitioners statingthat:B BiakNaBatoM MiningCompa anysminingc claimsare tablelocated ,therefore,nu ullandvoid,a andthatithad dnolegalpersonalitytofiletheprotestin ntheBureauo ofMines. Hencethispet H tition. ISSUE: Arethefinding A goffactsmadebytheSecre etaryandtheD DirectorofMi inessubjectto ojudicialrevie ew? HELD: H Petitionishere P ebyDISMISSE ED. Undertheprin U nciplesofadm ministrativelaw winforceint thisjurisdictio on,decisionso ofadministrat tiveofficerssh hallnotbe disturbedbyt d thecourts,exc ceptwhenthe eformerhave eactedwithoutorinexces ssoftheirjurisdiction,orw withgrave abuse of discr a retion. Findin of admini ngs istrative offici ials and agen ncies who hav acquired e ve expertise beca ause their ju urisdictionis confinedtos specificmattersaregenera allyaccorded notonlyresp pectbutattim mesevenfinalityifsuch findings are s f supported by substantial e evidence and are controllin on the rev ng viewing autho orities becaus of their se acknowledged a dexpertisein thefieldsofspecializationt towhichthey yareassigned.Eventhecou urtsofjustice, ,including thisCourt,are t eboundbysu uchfindingsin ntheabsence ofaclearsho owingofagra aveabuseofd discretion,wh hichisnot presentinthis p scaseatbar. oOo EUR ROMEDLABORATORIES, PHIL.,INC.,r representedb byLEONARDO OH.TORIBIO O,petitioner, vs.THEPROV v VINCEOFBAT TANGAS,repr resentedbyi itsGovernor,HON.HERMI ILANDOI.MA ANDANAS,res spondent. G.R.No.1481 106July17,2006 Thedoctrineof T ofprimaryjuri isdictionholds sthatifacase eissuchthati itsdeterminat tionrequirest theexpertise,s specialized trainingandk t knowledgeofa anadministrativebody,reli iefmustfirstb beobtainedin nanadministr rativeproceed dingbefore resort to the c r courts is had even if the ma e atter may wel be within th proper jurisdiction. It a ll heir applies where a claim is originally cogn o nizable in the courts and co omes into play whenever e ay enforcement of the claim re f equires the res solution of is ssueswhich,u underaregulatoryscheme,h havebeenplac cedwithinthespecialcompe etenceofanadministrativeagency.In suchacase,th s hecourtinwh hichtheclaim issoughttob beenforcedmaysuspendth hejudicialpro ocesspending referralof suchissuestot s theadministra ativebodyforitsviewor,if thepartieswo ouldnotbeunf nfairlydisadva antaged,dismis ssthecase withoutprejud w dice Petitioner Eur P roMed Labs filed a compla f aint for sum o money aga of ainst responde Province of Batangas. The latter ent purchasedvar p riousIntraven nousFluids(IV VF)productsf fromtheforme er,withanun npaidbalanceo ofP487,662.8 80. Duringthetria D alandafterthepetitionerspresentationofevidence,r respondentfile edamotionto odismissontheground oflackofjurisdictionofthecourt.Itappe o earedthatpeti itionersmone eyclaimmust tbelodgedbef foretheComm missionon Audit (COA). In addition, the series of procurement transactions with the pr A t t s rovince, was governed by the Local Government C G Code provisio ons and COA rules and regulations on supply and property management in local A t governments. The RTC fou the petitio meritoriou and grante the dismiss of the cas Petitioners MR was g und on us ed sal se. subsequentlyd s denied,hence ethepetition. ISSUE: Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

4 4|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts DoestheCOAh D havejurisdict tionoverthem moneyclaim? HELD: H Petitionishere P ebyDENIED. Althoughthea A amountofmo oneyclaimfal llswithinthe jurisdictiono oftheRTCitis sclearwithin nSec26ofthe eAuditing CodeofthePh C hilippinesthat t:Theauthori ityandpower rsoftheComm mission[onAu udit]shallexte endtoandcom mprehend allmattersrel a latingtoxxx xxtheexamin nation,audit, andsettlemen ntofalldebts sandclaimso ofanysortdu uefromor owingtotheG o Governmentor ranyofitssub bdivisions,age encies,andinstrumentalitie es. Thescopeofth T heCOAsauth horitytotake cognizanceof fclaimsiscirc cumscribed,ho owever,byan nunbrokenlin neofcases holdingstatutesofsimilari h importtomea anonlyliquid datedclaims,o orthosedeter rminedorrea adilydetermin nablefrom vouchers, invo v oices, and such other papers within re each of accou unting officers Petitioners claim was fo a fixed s. or amount andalthough respo a ondenttook is ssue withthe eaccuracyof p petitioners su ummation of itsaccountab bilities, the amountthereo a ofwasreadily ydeterminablefromthereceipts,invoice esandotherd documents.Thus,theclaim mwaswell withintheCOA w Asjurisdiction nundertheGovernmentAu uditingCodeo ofthePhilippines. Futhermore,p F petitionersmo oneyclaimwa asfoundedon naseriesofp purchasesfort themedicalsuppliesofres spondents publichospitals.Bothpartie p esagreedthat tthesetransac ctionswerego overnedbyth heLocalGover rnmentCodep provisions onsupplyandpropertyman o nagementand dtheirimplem mentingrulesa andregulation nspromulgate edbytheCOA Apursuant toSection383 t 3ofsaidCode.Petitioners claimtherefor reinvolvedco ompliancewit thapplicable auditinglawsandrules onprocurement. o Thecourtmay T yraisetheissu ueofprimary yjurisdictions suasponteand ditsinvocatio oncannotbew waivedbythe efailureof thepartiesto argueitasthedoctrineexi t istsfortheproperdistribut tionofpower rbetweenjudi icialandadmi inistrative bodiesandnot b tfortheconve enienceofthe eparties. oOo LOUIS"BA AROK"C.BIRA AOGO,Petitio oner,vs.THE EPHILIPPINE ETRUTHCOM MMISSIONOF 2010,Respon ndent. G.R R.No.192935Decem mber7,2010 Itshouldbestr I ressedthatthe epurposeofa allowingadho ocinvestigatin ngbodiestoex xististoallow waninquiryintomatters whichthePres w sidentisentitl ledtoknowso othathecan beproperlyadvisedandgu uidedinthepe erformanceof fhisduties relativetothe executionand r denforcement tofthelawso oftheland.Th herebeingno changesinthe egovernment tstructure, theCourtisno t otinclinedtod declaresuchex xecutivepowe erasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirectio onofthepolit ticalwinds havechanged. h This is a pro T oduct of two consolidated cases quest d tioning the co onstitutionality of the defunct Philippine Truth Commission ( C (PTC). In his first official a as Preside Mr.Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 which created a act ent, special body to investigat reported c s te cases of graf and corrup ft ption alleged committed during the previous dly d administration a n. ISSUE(S): denthavethe epowertocre eatethePhilip ppineTruthCo ommissionby yvirtueofSec c31ofthe 1. DoesthePresid nistrative Cod which gran him the p de, nts power to reo organize his office? Is the a valid ere Revised Admin elegationofpowerfromCo ongress,empoweringthePr residenttocre eateapublico office? deAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

5|

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

6 6|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts PCAGC had th same comp P he position, or th the former used the of hat r ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the inquiry stressed that the purpose o allowing ad hoc investig of gating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into s o It should be s matterswhich m hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha athecanbep properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof hisdutiesrelat h tivetotheexe ecutionanden nforcementof fthelawsofth heland.There ebeingnochangesinthego overnment structure,the Courtisnoti s inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist tentjustbecau usethedirect tionofthe politicalwinds p shavechanged. Violationofth V heEqualProt tectionClause e A Althoughthe purposeofth heTruthComm missionfallsw withintheinv vestigativepow werofthePresident,theC Courtfinds difficultyinup d pholdingthec constitutionali ityofExecutiv veOrderNo.1 1inviewofits sapparenttra ansgressionof ftheequal protectionclau p useenshrined dinSection1,ArticleIII(Bil llofRights)of fthe1987Con nstitution. The T clear man ndate of the envisioned tr ruth commiss sion is to inv vestigate and find out the truth "conce erning the reportedcases r sofgraftandcorruptiondu uringtheprev viousadminist trationonly. Theintentto singleoutthe eprevious administration a nisplain,pate entandmanif fest.Mention ofithasbeen nmadeinatle eastthreepor rtionsoftheq questioned executiveorde e er. Inthisregard,itmustbeborneinmindth hattheArroyo oadministrati ionisbutjustamemberofa aclass,thatis s,aclassof past administr p rations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past administr n f t rations similar situated c rly constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protect a e tion clause c cannot sancti ion. Such discriminating differentiatio clearly on reverberatest r tolabelthecom mmissionasa avehicleforvi indictivenessandselectiveretribution. oOo BRILLANTES,C. B MANILA INTERNATIO ONALAIRPOR RTAUTHORIT MIAA),pe TY( etitioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALS,respon ndent. G.R.No.155650 G July20,2006 MIAA is a gove M ernment instr rumentality ve ested with corp porate powers to perform e s efficiently its g governmental functions. MIAAislikean M nyothergovern nmentinstrum mentality,theo onlydifference eisthatMIAAisvestedwithcorporatepow wers. Petitioner Man International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates the Ninoy A P nila s Aquino Intern national Airpo (NAIA) ort Complex in Pa C araaque City under Execu y utive Order No 903, otherw o. wise known a the Revised Charter of t Manila as d the International Airport Autho ority (MIAA Charter). E Executive Order No. 903 w issued on 21 July 1983 by then was n PresidentFerd P dinandE.Marcos.Subseque ently,Executiv veOrderNos.909and298a amendedtheM MIAACharter r. Asoperatorof A ftheinternat tionalairport, MIAAadministerstheland d,improveme entsandequip pmentwithin ntheNAIA Complex. The MIAA Chart transferred to MIAA ap C e ter d pproximately 600 hectares of land, inclu uding the run nways and buildings (Air b rport Lands and Buildings) then under the Bureau of Air Transp a r portation. The MIAA Chart further e ter providesthat noportionof thelandtran p f nsferredtoMI IAAshallbed disposedofthr roughsaleor anyothermo odeunless specificallyapprovedbythe s ePresidentofthePhilippine es. On21March1 O 1997,theOffic ceoftheGovernmentCorpo orateCounsel(OGCC)issuedOpinionNo. .061.TheOGCCopined thattheLocalGovernmentC t Codeof1991withdrewthe eexemptionfr romrealestat tetaxgranted dtoMIAAund derSection

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

7|

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

8 8|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts When the law vests in a government i W w g instrumentalit corporate powers, the instrumentali does not become a ty ity corporation. U c Unless the gov vernment inst trumentality i organized a a stock or nonstock co is as orporation, it remains a governmentin g nstrumentality yexercisingn notonlygover rnmentalbuta alsocorporate epowers.Th hus,MIAAexe ercisesthe governmentalpowersofem g minentdomain n,policeautho orityandthele evyingoffeesandcharges.Atthesameti ime,MIAA exercises allt powers of acorporatio under the CorporationL e the on Law, insofara asthese powe ersare not inc consistent with the provisions of th Executive Order. Like w his ewise, when the law ma akes a gover rnment instru umentality operationally autonomous, the instrume o entality remains part of th National G he Government m machinery alth hough not integrated wit the depart th tment framew work. The M MIAA Charter expressly sta ates that tran nsforming MIAA into a separateandautonomousb bodywillma akeitsoperatio onmorefinanciallyviable. . There is also n reason for local govern T no r nments to tax national gove ernment instr rumentalities for rendering essential g publicservices p stoinhabitan ntsoflocalgov vernments.Th heonlyexceptioniswhent thelegislature eclearlyinten ndedtotax government i g instrumentalit ties for the delivery of essential pub blic services for sound a and compelli ing policy considerations There mu be expre language in the law e c s. ust ess empowering local governments to tax national x governmentin g nstrumentaliti ies.Anydoub btwhethersuc chpowerexis stsisresolvedagainstlocalgovernments. . The T AirportLa andsandBuil ldings of MIA arepropert of publicd AA ty dominion unde the Civil Co er ode, like roads, canals, rivers,torrent r ts,portsandri idgesconstruc ctedbytheSta ate,areowne edbytheState e.Thetermp poetsincludesseaports andairports.A a Aspropertieso ofpublicdom minion,theAirp portLandsan ndBuildingsar reoutsidethecommerceof fman. MIAA is gover M rnment instru umentality ves sted with corp porate power the fact tha it collects t rs, at terminal fees and other chargesisofn c nomoment,it doesnotrem movethechara acteroftheai irportlandsa andbuildingst toproperties forpublic use.Therefore u e,theyarepub blicdominionoutsidetheco ommerceofm man.MIAAisnotsubjecttor realpropertyt taxes. oOo GOVER RNMENTSERV VICEINSURA ANCESYSTEM M(GSIS)vs.CITYTREASUR REROFTHEC CITYOFMANI ILA Decem G.R.No.186242 mber23,2009 9 GSISisaninstr G rumentalityof ftheNationalGovernmentn notaGOCC.AG GOCCshouldb beacorporatio on.Itshouldh havestocks dividedintoshares.GSIScap d pitalisnotdivi idedintounits shared.Also,it thasnomemb berstospeako of. PetitionerGSISownsoruse P edtoowntwo oparcelsofla and,oneisthe eKatibakprop perty,andthe eothertheCo oncepsion Arroceros pro A operty. Title to the ConcepsionArrocero property w transferre to the Sup os was ed preme Court in in 2005 pursuanttoPr p roclamationN No.835datedA April27,2005 5.BoththeGSISandtheMe eTCofManilao occupytheCo oncepsion Arrocerosproperty,whileth A heKatibakpro opertywasun nderlease. Thecontrover T rsystartedwh hentheCityTr reasurerofManilaaddressedaletterto GSISPresiden ntandGenera alManager WinstonGarci W iainformingh himoftheunp paidrealprope ertytaxesdue eontheaforem mentionedpr ropertiesfory years1992 to t 2002, brok down as follows: (a) P54, 826,599 ken 9.37 for the K Katibak prope erty; and (b) P48,498,91.0 for the 01 ConcepsionAr C rrocerosprop perty.Thelette erwarnedoft theinclusionsofthesubject tpropertiesin ntheschedule edOctober 30,2002publ 3 licauctionof alldelinquent tpropertiesin nManilashou uldtheunpaid dtaxesremai inunsettledb beforethat date. d TheCityTreas T surerofMani ilaissuedsepa arateNotices ofRealtyTax xDelinquency yforthesubje ectproperties s,withthe usualwarning u gofseizurean nd/orsale.OnOctober8,20 002,GSIS,thro oughitslegalcounsel,wrot tebackempha asizingthe GSISexemptio G onfromallkin ndsoftaxes,in ncludingrealty ytaxes,under rRA8291. TheGSISlater T ramendeditspetitiontoincludethefact tthat:(a)the Katibakprope ertyhas,since eNovember2 2001,been leasedtoando occupiedbyth heManilaHot telCorporatio on(MHC),whi ichhascontra actuallybound ditselftopayanyrealtyAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

9|

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

10 0|

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

11|

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

QuasiLegisl Q lativePower rs

CONGRESSMA C ANJAMESL.C CHIONGBIAN,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR RM.ORBOS,r respondent. Jun G.R.No.96754 ne22,1995

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

12|

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

13|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts With respect t the change of regional c W to e center from Z Zamboanga Ci to Pagadia City, petitioner contend that the ity an ds determination d nofprovincialcapitalshasa alwaysbeenb byactofCongr ress.Administ trativeregionsaremeregro oupingsof contiguous provinces for ad c dministrative purposes. Th are notte hey erritorial and political subd divisions like p provinces, cities, municip c palities and barangays. The is, therefo no basis for contendin that only C ere ore, ng Congress can change or determinereg d gionalcenters.Thepowert toreorganize administrativ veregionscar rrieswithitthepowertod determine theregionalce t enter. oOo ENZOM.TANA ADA,petitione vs.HON.JU er, UANC.TUVER RA,respondent. LORE G. .R.No.L6391 15 Apr ril24,1985 Allstatutes,includingthose oflocalappli A icationandpr rivatelaws,sh hallbepublishedasaconditionfortheir effectivity, whichshallbeg w ginfifteenday ysafterpublica ationunlessad differenteffectivitydateisfi fixedbytheleg gislature. people'sright tobeinforme edonmatters sofpubliccon ncern,aright recognizedin nSection6,Ar rticleIVof Invokingthep the1973PhilippineConstit t tution,1aswe ellastheprinc ciplethatlawstobevalida andenforceab blemustbepu ublishedin theOfficialGazetteorother t rwiseeffective elypromulgat ted,petitioner rsseekawrit ofmandamus stocompelre espondent publicofficials p stopublish,an ndorcauseth hepublication nintheOfficia alGazetteofva ariouspreside entialdecrees s,lettersof instructions,g generalorders proclamation s, ns,executiveo orders,letterofimplementationandadm ministrativeor rders. The responde T ents, through the Solicitor General, wo r ould have th case dism his missed outrigh on the gro ht ound that petitioners ha no legal personality or standing to bring the ins p ave p r stant petition The view is submitted th in the n. s hat absence of an showing th petitioner are person a ny hat rs nally and dire ectly affected or prejudice by the alle ed eged non publicationof thepresidentialissuancesinquestion2 p f 2saidpetition nersarewitho outtherequis sitelegalpers sonalityto institutethism mandamuspro oceeding,they yarenotbeing g"aggrievedp parties"within nthemeaning gofSection3,Rule65of theRulesofCo t ourt. Upontheotherhand,petitio U onersmaintainthatsinceth hesubjectoft thepetitionco oncernsapubl licrightandit tsobjectis tocompeltheperformanceofapublicdu t uty,theyneed notshowany yspecificinter restfortheirp petitiontobegivendue course. c Issues: 1. W Whetherthepe etitionershavelegalstandin ng. 2. W Whetherpublic cationintheO OfficialGazette eisrequired. HELD: H 1. Petiti ionershaveLe egalStanding g Clearly, the ri C ight sought to be enforce by petition t ed ners herein is a public rig recognize by no less than the s ght ed s fundamentalla f awoftheland d.Ifpetitioner rswerenotall lowedtoinstit tutethisproce eeding,itwou uldindeedbed difficultto conceive of an other pers to initiate the same, c c ny son e considering th the Solicit General, t governme officer hat tor the ent generallyempoweredtorep g presentthepe eople,hasente eredhisappea aranceforrespondentsinth hiscase. 2. Public cationintheOfficialGazet tteisrequired d Article2ofthe A eCivilCode: Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

14 4|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A 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." The T interpreta ation given by respondent is in accord with this Cou y urt's construc ction of said a article. In a lo line of ong decisions,thisCourthasrul d ledthatpublic cationintheO OfficialGazett teisnecessary yinthosecase eswherethel legislation it tselfdoesnot tprovidefori itseffectivity dateforthenthedateof publicationis smaterialfor determining itsdateof effectivity,whichisthefifte e eenthdayfollo owingitspubl licationbutn notwhenthelawitselfprov videsforthed datewhen it tgoesintoeff fect.Responde ents'argumen nt,however,islogicallycorr rectonlyinsof farasitequate estheeffectivityoflaws withthefacto w ofpublication. .Consideredi inthelightof otherstatutesapplicableto otheissueat hand,thecon nclusionis easilyreached e dthatsaidArt ticle2doesno otprecludeth herequiremen ntofpublicati ionintheOffi icialGazette,e evenifthe la awitselfprov videsfortheda ateofitseffec ctivity. Theclearobjectofthelawi T istogivetheg generalpublic cadequatenot ticeofthevar riouslawswhi icharetoregu ulatetheir actionsandco a onductascitizens.Withouts suchnoticean ndpublication n,therewould dbenobasisfo ortheapplicat tionofthe maxim"ignora m antialegisnon nexcusat."Itw wouldbetheh heightofinjust ticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitiz zenforthe transgressionofalawofwh t hichhehadno onoticewhats soever,noteve enaconstruct tiveone. TheCourther T rebyordersre espondentsto opublishinth heOfficialGaz zetteallunpub blishedpresid dentialissuan nceswhich areofgeneralapplication,a a andunlesssop published,the eyshallhaven nobindingforc ceandeffect. G.R.No.L63915 Decem mber29,1986 6 Whenalawta W akeseffect ThesubjectofcontentionisArticle2ofth T f heCivilCodep providingasfo ollows: "ART.2.Laws " sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unless sitisotherwis seprovided.T ThisCodeshal lltakeeffecto oneyearaftersuchpublicati ion." Theclause"un T nlessitisothe erwiseprovide 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. Publicationis indispensable P eineverycas se,butthelegislaturemayi initsdiscretio onprovideth hattheusualf fifteenday periodshallbe p eshortenedo orextended.A Anexampleis theCivilCode ewhichdidno otbecomeeff fectiveafterfif fteendays fromitspublic f cationintheO OfficialGazette ebut"oneyea araftersuchpu ublication."Th hegeneralruledidnotappl lybecause it twas"otherw wiseprovided." Lawswhichm L mustbesubjec ctedtopublic cation The T Court holds that all statutes, inclu s uding those of local applic cation and pr rivate laws, shall be published as a conditionfort c theireffectivit ty,whichshall lbeginfifteen ndaysafterpu ublicationunle essadifferent teffectivityda ateisfixed bythelegislatu b ure. Covered by th rule are pr C his residential decrees and exe ecutive orders spromulgated dby the President in the e exercise of legislativepow werswheneve erthesamear revalidlydelegatedbythel legislatureor, ,atpresent,di irectlyconferr redbythe Constitution.A C Administrative erulesandre egulationsmustalsobepub blishediftheir rpurposeisto oenforceorimplement existinglawpu e ursuantalsotoavaliddeleg gation. merely intern in nature, that is, reg nal , gulating only the personn of the nel Interpretative regulations and those m administrative agency and not the publ need not be published. Neither is p a e lic, publication required of the socalled eAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

15|

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

16 6|

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

17|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Thedetermina T ationofwheth heraspecificr ruleorsetofr rulesissuedby yanadminist trativeagency ycontravenesthelawor theconstitutio t oniswithinth hejurisdictionoftheregular rcourts. t uance by the NTC of Memorandum Circ cular No. 1362000 and its Memorand dum dated In the case at bar, the issu October 6, 2000 was pursu O uant to its qu uasilegislative or rulemak e king power. A such, petitioners were ju As ustified in invokingtheju udicialpoweroftheRegionalTrialCourttoassailthec constitutionali ityandvalidit tyofthesaidissuances. oOo EASTERNS SHIPPINGLIN NES,petitioner r,vs.COURTO OFAPPEALSa andDAVAOP PILOTSASSOC CIATION,resp pondent. 29June1998 G.R.No.116356 G Whatdetermin W neswhethera anactisalaw woranadministrativeissua anceisnotits formbutitsn nature.Herea aswehave alreadysaid,t a thepowertof fixtheratesof fchargesfors services,includ dingpilotage service,hasa alwaysbeenre egardedas le egislativeinch haracter. Private respon P ndent Davao Pilots Associa ation (DPA) e elevated a com mplaint again petitioner Eastern Ship nst pping Line (petitioner)fo ( orsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesalleg gingthatthefo ormerhadren nderedpilotag geservicestopetitioner between Janu b uary 14, 1987 to July 22, 1989 with to 7 otal unpaid f fees of P703,290.18. Desp pite repeated demands, petitioner faile to pay. Pet p ed titioner assail the consti led itutionality of the Executive Order (EO) 1088 upon w f e which DPA basesitsclaim b ms. TheRegionalT T TrialCourt(R RTC)grantedt thepetitionof ftheprivatere espondentwh hichrulingwa asaffirmedby ytheCourt ofAppeals(CA o A).HTP. ISSUE: WhetherEO1088isuncons W stitutional. HELD: H Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Petitionerinsi P iststhatitsho ouldpaypilot tagefeesinac ccordancewit thandonthebasisofthem memorandum mcirculars issuedbythe PPA,theadm ministrativebo odyvestedun nderPD857w withthepowe ertoregulate eandprescrib bepilotage fees. In assaili the constitutionality of EO 1088, the petitioner re f ing f e epeatedly ask "Is the priv ks: vate responde vested ent wit w hpowertointerpretExe ecutiveOrderNo.1088?" nterisland Shi ipping Associa ation of the Ph hilippines vs. C Court of Appeals,the Supre eme Court, th hrough Mr. InPhilippine In eV.Mendoza, ,upheldthev validityandco onstitutionalit tyofExecutiv veOrder1088 8innouncert tainterms. JusticeVicente Weaptlyiterateourpronou W uncementinsa aidcase,viz.: y o. ld nsidered a sta atute because that would imply the e It is not an answer to say that E.O. No 1088 shoul not be con withdrawalof w fpowerfromt thePPA.Wha atdetermines whetherana actisalawor anadministrativeissuance eisnotits formbutitsna f ature.Hereas swehavealre eadysaid,thepowertofixt theratesofch hargesforserv vices,includin ngpilotage service,hasalw s waysbeenreg gardedaslegis slativeinchar racter. xxxxxxxxx x onotethatE.O O.NO.1088pr rovidesforad djustedpilotag geservicerate eswithoutwit thdrawingthe epowerof Itisworthyto thePPAtoimpose,prescrib t be,increaseordecreaserat tes,chargeso orfees.There easonisbecau useE.O.No.1088isnotAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

18 8|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts meant simply to fix new pilotage rates. Its legislativ purpose is the "rationa m p ve s alization of pi ilotage service charges, e throughtheim t mpositionofun niformandad djustedratesf forforeignand dcoastwiseve esselsinallPh hilippineports s. xxxxxxxxx x Weconcludet W thatE.O.No.1 1088isavalid dstatuteand thatthePPA Aisdutyboun ndtocomplyw withitsprovisions.The PPAmayincre P easetheratesbutitmaynot tdecreasethe embelowthos semandatedb byE.O.No.108 88..... Weseenorea W asontodepart tfromthisrul ling.TheCour rt'sholdingcle earlydebunks spetitioner's insistenceon payingits pilotagefeesb p basedonmem morandumcirc cularsissuedb bythePPA.B BecausethePP PAcircularsareinconsisten ntwithEO 1088,theyare 1 evoidandineffective."Adm ministrativeor rexecutiveact ts,ordersand dregulationss shallbevalido onlywhen theyarenotco t ontrarytothe elawsortheC Constitution." Asstatedby thisCourtinL LandBankof thePhilippine esvs.Court ofAppeals,[t] o ]heconclusive eeffectofadm ministrativeconstructionis snotabsolute e.Actionofan nadministrati iveagency maybedisturb m bedorsetasidebythejudi icialdepartme entifthereis anerrorofla aw,agraveab buseofpower rorlackof ju urisdiction,or rgraveabuse eofdiscretion nclearlyconflictingwitheit thertheletter rorspiritoft thelaw."Itis axiomatic that an admin t nistrative agen like the P ncy, PPA, has no d discretion whether to impl lement the law or not. Its duty is to w enforce it. Una e arguably, ther refore, if ther is any confl between t PPA circu re lict the ular and a law such as EO 1088, the w, la atterprevails. oOo ICEEXPORTE ERS,INC.,petit tioner,vs.HON N.RUBEND.T TORRES,resp pondent. PHILIPPINEASSOCIATIONOFSERVI G.R.No.101279/212SCRA2996 August1992 Administrative rules and re A e egulations mus also be pub st blished if their purpose is t enforce or implement ex to xisting law pursuanttoav p validdelegatio on.Interpretat tiveregulation nsandthosem merelyinternal linnature,tha atis,regulatin ngonlythe personnelofth p headministrat tiveagencyan ndnotthepub blic,neednot bepublished. Neitherispub blicationrequiredofthe socalled letter of instructio issued by administrativ superiors co s rs ons ve oncerning the rules of guidelines to be fo ollowed by their subordinates in the pe t erformance of their duties. For lack of p f proper publica ation, the adm ministrative ci irculars in questionmayn q notbeenforced dandimpleme ented. Philippine Association of Service Impo P orters (PASEI for short) is the larges national o I, st organization o private of employment a e and recruitm ment agencies duly license and autho ed orized by the Philippine Overseas Em e mployment Administration A n(POEA)toe engageinthe businessofobtainingover rseasemploym mentforFilipi inolandbased dworkers, includingdom mestichelpers. OnJune1,199 O 91,Departmen ntofLaboran ndEmployment(DOLE)Sec cretaryissued dDepartment tOrderNo.16 6,Seriesof 1991,tempora 1 arilysuspendi ingtherecruit tmentbypriv vateemployme entagencieso ofFilipinodo omestichelper rsgoingto HongKong.T H TheDOLEitsel lf,throughthe ePOEAtookov verthebusine essofdeployin ngsuchHongKongboundw workers. Pursuant to th above DOLE circular, t POEA issu Memoran P he the ued ndum Circular No. 30, Ser ries of 1991, providing GUIDELINES o the Govern G on nment proces ssing and dep ployment of F Filipino dome estic helpers to Hong Kon and the ng accreditationo a ofHongKongrecruitmenta agenciesinten ndingtohireF Filipinodomes stichelpers.Thiswasfollow wedbythe issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 3 Series of 1 C 37, 1991, on the processing of employment contracts of domestic f t f workersinHongKong.HTP w Pforprohibitio ontoannulth heaforementio onedDOLEan ndPOEAcircul lars. ISSUE: Whether the D W Department Order and Mem O morandum Ci irculars are v void for noncompliance wi the requir ith rements of publicationan p ndfilingwitht theOfficeofth heNationalAd dministrativeRegister HELD: HAlcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

19|

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

20 0|

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Manilaforfourmonths.Itis M sonlyafterthe eyhaveachiev vedsatisfacto oryperforman thattheyaregivenperm nce manentand regularappoin r ntmentsbythe ePPAitselftoexerciseharbo orpilotageuntiltheyreachtheageof70,unlesssooner rremoved byreasonofm b mentalorphys sicalunfitnessbythePPAGeneralManag ger. Subsequently, PPA issued PPAAO No. 0492provid S ding that "all existing regu ular appointm ments which h have been previouslyissu p uedeitherbytheBureauofC CustomsorthePPAshallre emainvalidup pto31December1992only y"andthat "allappointme " entstoharbor rpilotposition nsinallpilota agedistrictssh hall,hencefort th,beonlyfor ratermofon ne(1)year fromdateofef f ffectivitysubje ecttoyearlyr renewalorcan ncellationbyt theAuthority afterconduct tofarigideva aluationof performance." p Respondents q R questioned th implement he tation of PPA AAO No. 049 before the Department of Transport 92 tation and Communicatio C on(DOTC)for rPPAsnonco ompliancewiththerequire ementofpublichearingbu utthenDOTC Secretary Garciainsisted G dthatthemat tterwaswithin nthejurisdict tionoftheBoa ardofDirecto orsofthePPA. .Respondents sappealed thisrulingtot t theOfficeofth hePresident(O OP). TheOPissued T danorderdire ectingthePPA Atoholdinab beyancetheim mplementation nofPPAAON No.0492.Init tsanswer, the PPA coun t ntered that sa administr aid rative order w issued in the exercise of its administrative co was n ontrol and supervisionov s verharborpil lotsunderSection6a(viii i),ArticleIVo ofP.D.No.857,asamended,andit,alon ngwithits implementingguidelines,w wasintendedto orestoreorde erintheportsandtoimprovethequality yofportservic ces. TheOP,throug T ghthenAssist tantExecutive eSecretaryfo orLegalAffairsRenatoC.Co orona,dismissedtheappea al/petition and opined th PPAAO No. 0492doe not forbid,, but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilot of their a hat es e y ts professioninP p PPA'sjurisdictionalarea. As A regards the alleged "absence of amp prior cons ple sultation" befo the issuan of the ad ore nce dministrative order, the Secretary cited Section 26 of P.D. No. 8 S 857, which merely requires the PPA to consult with "relevant Go overnment agencies." He concluded that the law has been sufficiently com a mplied with b the PPA i issuing the assailed by in e administrative a eordersincet thePPABoard dofDirectors siscomposed oftheSecreta ariesoftheDO OTC,theDepa artmentof PublicWorks andHighways P s,theDepartm mentofFinanc ce,andtheDe epartmentofE Environment andNaturalR Resources, as a well as the DirectorGen e neral of the N National Econo omic Develop pment Agency the Adminis y, strator of the Maritime e IndustryAutho ority(MARINA A),andthepr rivatesectorre epresentative e. Respondents f R filed a petitio forcertiora prohibition and injunct on ari, tion with pray for the is yer ssuance of a t temporary restrainingord r deranddamagesbeforethe eRegionalTrialCourt(RTC C)whichgrant tedthesame.H HTP. ISSUE: WhetherPPAAONo.0492isvoidforvio W olatingdueprocessoflaw. HELD: H Thepetitionis T sDENIED. Respondents a R argue that du process wa not observed in the ado ue as option of PPA AAO No. 0492 allegedly because no hearing was c h conducted wh hereby "relev vant governme agencies" and the pilo themselve could ventilate their ent " ots es views.Theyar v reobviouslyr referringtoth heprocedural aspectofthe enactment.Fo ortunately,th heCourthasm maintained aclearpositioninthisregar a rd,astanceithasstressedintherecentcaseofLumiq quedv.Hon.Ex xevea,wherei itdeclared that"(a)slong t gasapartyw wasgiventheo opportunityt todefendhisi interestsindu uecourse,he cannotbesaidtohave beendeniedd b dueprocessof flaw,forthisopportunity tobeheardistheveryess senceofduep process.More eover,this constitutional mandateisde c eemedsatisfie edifapersonisgrantedan nopportunitytoseekrecon nsiderationoftheaction orrulingcomp o plainedof." Alcaraz,Atienza, A Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla aton,Robles,Var rgas

21|

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

22|

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

USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 ADMINISTRAT A TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts Whether the publication of RMC 3793 filing of co W o 3, opies thereof with the UP Law Center and prior he earing are necessaryfori n itsvalidity,eff fectivityande enforceability. . HELD: H Petition DENIED. RMC 3793 is invalid, defective and unenforceab due to no P d ble onpublication and for lack of public n k hearing. h Itshouldbeun nderstandable ethatwhenan nadministrati iveruleismer relyinterpreta ativeinnature e,itsapplicabi ilityneeds nothing furthe than its ba issuance f it gives no real consequ n er are for o uence more t than what the law itself ha already e as prescribed.Wh p hen,uponthe eotherhand,t theadministra ativerulegoe esbeyondmer relyproviding gforthemean nsthatcan facilitateorrenderleastcum f mbersomethe eimplementat tionofthelaw wbutsubstant tiallyaddstoo orincreasesth heburden of o those gover rned, it behooves the agen to accord at least to t ncy d those directly affected a ch hance to be h heard, and thereaftertob t bedulyinform med,beforetha atnewissuanc ceisgiventhe eforceandeff fectoflaw. AreadingofR A RMC3793,particularlycon nsideringthec circumstances sunderwhichithasbeenis ssued,convinc cesusthat thecircularca t annotb


EPA Rutgers Raritan River Project Data Compilation and Integration

THIRD CIRCUIT & SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASE ...nj.fd.org/sites/nj.fd.org/files/cja-seminar-materials/...THIRD CIRCUIT & SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASE LAW DIGESTS COMPILATION January

Political Law Compilation of Case Digests - Sec. 8 and 10, Art. III, 1987 Constitution

LTD Compilation of Case Digests - 2015

Compilation of Case Digests Jurisdiction

Insurance ; Compilation ; Digests [Pending]

Compilation of Digests Political Law 1 Bill of Rights and Citizenship

Case Digests Batch 5 - Case Digests on Delay

Case Digests Compilation

Compilation of Case Digests - Remedial Law March 2014

86763170 EPA Compilation of Digests

Compilation of Assigned Cases Set 3 Digests

THIRD CIRCUIT & SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL …...THIRD CIRCUIT & SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL CASE LAW DIGESTS COMPILATION January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 The case digests in this

FINALS Case Digests Compilation

Compilation of Digests-Transpo

Compilation of Case Digests - Political Law

Compilation of Studies Identified by EPA Office of Water · Full List of Studies Identified by EPA Office ... Effects of External Currents and Dissimiliar Metal Contact on Corrosion

TAX CASE DIGESTS COMPILATION (1).docx

Political Law Case Digests - Compilation

U.S. EPA NCP Product Schedule Technical Notebookocean.floridamarine.org/ACP/MIAACP/Documents/EPA/EPA_NCP_Produ… · This NCP Product Schedule Technical Notebook contains a compilation

Compilation of Digests - I Judiciary One Column

THE KEYS TO SUCCESS - Tellus Institute Keys to Success - A Compilation of... · the keys to success a compilation of workable p2 integration techniques prepared for: epa region 8

Compilation of Case Digests in Political law-prelims

Credit Txn Compilation of Case Digests

Election Law Digests Compilation

Crim 1 Digests Compilation 2nd Set

233288725 Oblicon Case Digests Final Compilation

OBLICON Digests Compilation Set 2 Cases 71 to 117

Corporation Law Case Digests Compilation

61909383 Crim Rev Digests Compilation Beadle s Copy

Case Digests Batch 4 - Digests on Kinds of Negligence

Partnership and Agency Digests Compilation

Compilation of Case Digests Constitutional Law 1 (1-Viada).docx

CORPO Outline 4 CASE Digests Compilation

Credit Transactions Case Digests (b2 Full Texts & Digests)