USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
ADMINIS STRATIVELAW
G General Prin nciples B BUSTONERA,C C. HON.EX
XECUTIVESECRETARY,HO ON.SECRETA ARYOFTHEDEPARTMENT D TOFTRANSP
PORTATIONAND A 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
ntMARIANOC.SONON,Re espondents. G.R R.No.164171Februa ary20,2006 To
be valid, an T n administrat tive issuance, such s as an ex
xecutive order,, must comply y with the foll lowing requisi
ites:(1) Its p promulgation must be auth horized by the e
legislature;( (2) It must be e promulgated d in accordan nce with
the prescribed p p procedure; (3)Itmustbewithin t
thescopeoftheauthori itygivenbythe elegislature;and(4) a
Itmustbereasonable e. Three separat T te actions were w filed by
respondent business org ganizations against a petitioners questio
oning the c constitutionali ityofArticle2 2,Section3.1o
ofExecutiveO Order(EO)156whichimpo osesabanont theimportatio
onofused m motorvehicles sanywherein
nthecountry,includingthosemadeinsid detheFreepor rtZones.Thet
trialcourtrule edintheir f favor and dec clared EO 156 6 repugnant
to the Constitu ution. The ap ppellate court sustained the e
findings of the lower c court.Henceth hispetition. ISSUE: W
WhetherArtic cle2,Section3 3.1ofEO156i isvalid? HELD: H P
PETITIONSAR REPARTIALLY YGRANTED. T Thesubjectm matterofthela
awsauthorizin ngthePresidenttoregulat teorforbidim mportationof
usedmotorv vehicles,is t domestic industry. the i EO 156, however
r, exceeded th he scope of its s application by extending the
prohibiti ion on the importationof
fusedcarstotheFreeport,whichRA722 27,considerst tosomeexten
nt,aforeignterritory. T proscripti The ion in the imp portation of
used u motor ve ehicles should d be operativ ve only outsid de the
Freepor rt and the inclusion of sa aid zone with hin the ambit of
the prohib bition is an in nvalid modific cation of RA 7227. 7
Indeed, when the a applicati onof anadministra ativeissuance
emodifiesexis stinglawsor exceedsthein ntendedscope e,asintheins
stantcase, t theissuanceb ecomesvoid,notonlyforbeingultravire
es,butalsofor rbeingunreas sonable. A Aslongasthe eusedmotorv
vehiclesdono otenterthecu ustomsterrito ory,theinjury yorharmsou
ughttobepre eventedor r remediedwill notarise.To applythepro
oscriptiontot theFreeportw wouldnotser rvethepurposeoftheEO.
Insteadof improvingthe egeneralecon nomyoftheco ountry,theap
pplicationofth heimportationbanintheF Freeportwoul ldsubvert t
avowed purpose of RA the A 7227 which is to create a a market that
t would draw w investors an nd ultimately boost the n nationalecono
omy. oOo A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
1|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
LUPOL.LUPANGCO,RA AYMONDS.MANGKAL, M NO ORMANA.ME ESINA,ALEXA
ANDERR.REG GUYAL,JOCEL LYNP. G,ENRICOV.REGALADO, R JE EROMEO.AR
RCEGA,ERNES STOC.BLAS,JR., J ELPEDIOM.ALMAZAN N,KARL CATAPANG
CAESAR C R.RIMANDO,peti itioner,vs.CO OURTOFAPP PEALSand ONALREGULA
ATIONCOMM MISSION,respo ondent. PROFESSIO G. .R.No.77372 Apr
ril29,1988
It is an axiom in administra I ative law that t administrativ ve
authorities s should not act a arbitrarily and capriciou usly in
the is ssuance of rul les and regula ations. To be valid, v such
rule es and regulations must be reasonable an nd fairly adap pted
to the e inview.If shown end s tobear rnoreasonabl lerelationtothe
t purposesfor fo whichtheyareauthorize edtobeissued, d,thenthey m
beheldto must obeinvalid. P Professional R Regulation Co ommission
(P PRC) issued Resolution R No o. 105 as par rt of its "Add
ditional Instru uctions to E Examiness," to o all those ap pplying
for ad dmission to ta ake the licens sure examinat tions in accou
untancy. The resolution r p prohibits exam minees from attending re
eview classes, , lectures or conferences of similar na ature,
includi ing taking r reviewers, notes or any re eview materia al of
any kind three days prior to the examination day. Violators will be
s sanctionedacc cordingtoSec c.8,Art.IIIoft theRulesandRegulationso
oftheCommission. P Petitionerrev ieweesfileda acomplaintfo
orinjunction, beforetheRe egionalTrialC Court(RTC)o ofManila,with
haprayer w withtheissuan nceofawrito ofapreliminar ryinjunctiona
againstrespon ndentPRCtorestrainthela atterfromenf forcingthe a
abovemention nedresolution nandtodecla arethesameu unconstitution
nal. P PRCmovedto odismissthec caseonthegr roundoflack
ofjurisdictio on,butwasde enied.Howeve er,theCourto ofappeals (
(CA)reversed theRTCandg grantedthesa ame.Hencethispetition.
ISSUE(s): 1. Canth heRTCreview wtheresolutio
onsofthePRCdespitethest tatusofbeingcoequalbodies? 2.
IsResolution105v s validandreaso onable? H HELD : P Petitionis GRA
ANTED. R HasJuris RTC sdiction C Contrarytoth hepositionof
theCA,thePR RC,asdirected dunderPresi identialDecre eeNo.223isa
attachedtotheOfficeof t thePresidentf forgeneraldir rectionandco
oordination.W Wellsettledinourjurisprud
denceistheviewthatevenactsofthe O OfficeofthePr
residentmaybereviewedb bythetheReg gionalTrialCo ourt.Asexplai
inedinMedall lavsSayo,beingsubject t tojudicialrevi iewdoesnotm
maketheExec cutiveinferior rtothecourts s,butbecause ethelawisab
bovetheChief f Executive h himself,andth hecourtsseek konlytointerp
pret,applyorimplementit. . A a general rule, As r the CA exercises
e exclusive appella ate jurisdiction n over all fina al judgments,
, decisions, re esolutions, o orders,orawa ardsofquasijudicialagenc
cies,suchast thePRC.Howe ever,thereha astobeafina alorderorrul
lingwhich r resultedfrom whereinthea administrative ebodyinvolve
edexercisedi its quasijudic cial functions. Thisdoes proceedingsw n
cover rule not es and regulat tions of gener ral applicabili ity
issued by the administrative body to implement its purely a
administrative epoliciesandfunctionslike eResolutionN
No.105whichwasadoptedbytherespon ndentPRCasa ameasure t
topreserveth licensureexam minations. eintegrityofl V Validity
ofthe eResolutionA Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
2|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
Itisanaxiom inadministra ativelawthat tadministrativ veauthorities
sshouldnota actarbitrarily andcapriciou uslyinthe lesandregula
ations.Tobev valid,suchrulesandregulat tionsmustbe
ereasonableandfairlyadap ptedtothe issuanceofrul e endinview.If
fshowntobea arnoreasona ablerelationto othepurpose esforwhichth
heyareauthorizedtobeiss sued,then t theymustbeh heldtobeinva alid.
Resolution No R o. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, a it
also a infringes on the exam minees' right to liberty g
guaranteedby ytheConstitution.Respond dentPRChasn noauthorityt
todictateont thereviewees sastohowth heyshould p preparethems
selvesforthelicensureexaminations.Th heycannotberestrainedfro
omtakingallt thelawfulstepsneeded t toassurethef fulfillmentof
theirambitiontobecome publicaccoun ntants.Theyh haveeveryrig
ghttomakeus seoftheir f faculties in att taining success in their
en ndeavors. The ey should be allowed a to en njoy their free edom
to acqu uire useful k knowledgetha atwillpromot tetheirperson
nalgrowth. oOo B BIAK NABAT TO MINING CO OMPANY, pet titioner,
vs.HON. ARTURO O R. TANCO, JR., in his cap pacity as the Secretary
S o Agriculture of eandNaturalResourcesand a BALATOC CLUBUAGAN
NMINES,INC., ,respondents s. G.R.Nos.L3426768 8 J January25,19
991
Under the prin U nciples of adm ministrative law w in force in
this jurisdictio on, decisions of o administrat tive officers sh
hall not be d disturbed by th he courts, exce ept when the former
fo have ac cted without or o in excess of their jurisdicti ion, or
with gr rave abuse o discretion. Findings of F of ad dministrative
officials o and ag gencies who have h acquired expertise beca ause
their juri isdiction is c confined to sp pecific matters s are
general lly accorded not n only respe ect but at tim mes even final
lity if such fin ndings are s supported by substantial ev vidence
and are a controlling g on the revi iewing author rities because of
their ackn nowledged e expertise inthe efieldsofspec
cializationtowhich w theyareassigned. P PetitionerBiak kNaBatoMin
ningCo.filedw withtheBure eauofMines( (BM)theappli icationforlea
aseandapetit tionforan o orderoflease surveyofits miningclaims
s.However,it treceivedano oticeofthelet tteroftheDir rectorofMine
esrefusing t toissuetheor rderofleasesurveybecause etheareasco
overedbytheminingclaims swerealleged dlyinconflict withfour ( other
grou (4) ups of mining g claims purp portedly own ned by private e
respondent ts BalatocLub buagan Mines s, Inc. and M MountainMin
es,Inc. Inlieuofthis, petitionercon ntestsanddis sputestherigh
htofBalatocL LubuaganMin nes,Inc.toele even(11)miningclaims a and
the right of Mountain n Mines, Inc. to another nine (9) minin ng
claims. It also questio oned the reco onstitution p proceedingsin
nMACCases Nos.V79and dV80byclai imingthatthe etwo(2)deedsofsaleove
erthe88lode eclaimsin f favorofMoun nc.andtheoth hertwo(2)de
eedsofsaleov ver52lodecla aimsofBalato ocLubuaganM Mines,Inc.
tainMines,In w werefake,fict itiousormanu ufactured.Fin
nally,whileits sprotestwasb beingheard,it tfiledwiththeBMamotion
nclaiming t thatBalatocL ubuaganMine es,Inc.andM MountainMine
es,Inc.'smen hadenteredt theareainco ontroversyby forceand h have
been mo olesting, haras ssing and thr reatening peti itioner's supp
posed worker rs in the area a. The Bureau u of Mines issueda
restrainingorderd a directingbothpartiestodes sistfromperf
forminganyfu urthermining gactivitiesint theareain c controversy. T
TheBM orderedanocularin e nspectionoft theplace.Ittu urnedoutthat
tpetitionersc claimofharass smentisfalseandlifted t therestraining
gorder. theyear,the DirectorofMinesruledaga B Bytheendof
ainstthepetit tioneranddec claredthatpr rivaterespond dentshave b
better rights to t the 170 mining claims. On O appeal to the
Secretary y of Agricultur re and Natura al Resources, petitioner q
questioned the validity of the t first ocula ar inspection. The
secretar ry granted its motion and ordered o anoth her ocular
inspection.Ho owever,these econdinspecti ionteamconf firmedtherep
portofthefirs stinspectiont teamandalso oreported t thatBiakNaB
BatoMiningCo ompanydespi iteopportunit tyaffordedwa asnotabletos
showitsexact tlocationinth hearea. A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
3|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T
TheSecretary gaveitsdecis sionadverset topetitioners statingthat:B
BiakNaBatoM MiningCompa anysminingc claimsare tablelocated
,therefore,nu ullandvoid,a andthatithad
dnolegalpersonalitytofiletheprotestin ntheBureauo ofMines. H
Henceth ispetition. t ISSUE: A Arethefinding goffactsmadebytheSecre
etaryandtheD DirectorofMi inessubjectto ojudicialrevie ew? H HELD :
P Petitionishere ebyDISMISSE ED. U Undertheprin nciplesofadm
ministrativelaw winforceint thisjurisdictio on,decisionso
ofadministrat tiveofficerssh hallnotbe d disturbedbyt thecourts,exc
ceptwhenthe eformerhave eactedwithoutorinexces
ssoftheirjurisdiction,orw withgrave a abuse of discr retion. Findin
ngs of admini istrative offici ials and agen ncies who hav ve
acquired expertise e beca ause their ju urisdictionis confinedtos
specificmattersaregenera allyaccorded notonlyresp pectbutattim
mesevenfinalityifsuch f findings are supported s by substantial
evidence e and are controllin ng on the rev viewing autho orities
becaus se of their a acknowledged dexpertisein
thefieldsofspecializationt towhichthey yareassigned.Eventhecou
urtsofjustice, ,including t thisCourt,are eboundbysu uchfindingsin
ntheabsence ofaclearsho owingofagra aveabuseofd discretion,wh
hichisnot p presentinthis scaseatbar. oOo EUR
ROMEDLABORATORIES,PHIL.,INC.,represented r by b LEONARDO OH.TORIBIO
O,petitioner, v THEPROV vs. VINCEOFBAT TANGAS,repr resentedbyits i
Governor,HON.HERMI ILANDOI.MA ANDANAS,res spondent. G.R.No.1481
106July17,2006 The doctrine of primary juri T isdiction holds s
that if a case e is such that its i determinat tion requires the t
expertise, specialized s t training and knowledge k of an a
administrative body, reli ief must first be b obtained in n an
administr rative proceed ding before r resort to the courts c is
had even e if the ma atter may wel ll be within th heir proper
jurisdiction. It applies a where a claim is o originally cogn
nizable in the courts and co omes into play ay whenever enforcement
e of f the claim re equires the res solution of is ssueswhich,under
u aregulatoryscheme,have h beenplac cedwithinthespecialcompe
etenceofanadministrativeagency.In s a case, th such he court in wh
hich the claim is sought to be b enforced may suspend th he
judicial pro ocess pending referral of s issues to the such t
administra ative body forits view or, if the parties wo ould not be
unf nfairly disadva antaged, dismis ss the case w without prejud
dice Petitioner Eur P roMed Labs filed f a compla aint for sum of o
money aga ainst responde ent Province of Batangas. The latter p
purchasedvar riousIntraven nousFluids(IV VF)productsf fromtheforme
er,withanun npaidbalanceo ofP487,662.8 80. D Duringthetria
alandafterthepetitionerspresentationofevidence,r respondentfile
edamotionto odismissontheground o oflackofjuris earedthatpeti
itionersmone eyclaimmust tbelodgedbef foretheComm missionon
dictionofthecourt.Itappe A Audit (COA). In addition, the t series
of procurement t transactions s with the pr rovince, was governed
by the Local G Government C Code provisio ons and COA A rules and
regulations on supply and property management t in local g
governments. The RTC fou und the petitio on meritoriou us and
grante ed the dismiss sal of the cas se. Petitioners MR was s
subsequentlyd denied,hence ethepetition. ISSUE: A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts D
DoestheCOAh havejurisdict tionoverthem moneyclaim? H HELD : P
Petitionishere ebyDENIED. A Althoughthea amountofmo oneyclaimfal
llswithinthe jurisdictiono oftheRTCitis sclearwithin nSec26ofthe
eAuditing C CodeofthePh hilippinesthat t:Theauthori ityandpower
rsoftheComm mission[onAu udit]shallexte endtoandcom mprehend a
allmattersrel latingtoxxx xxtheexamin nation,audit, andsettlemen
ntofalldebts sandclaimso ofanysortdu uefromor o owingtotheG
Governmentor ranyofitssub bdivisions,age encies,andinstrumentalitie
es. Thescopeofth T heCOAsauth horitytotake cognizanceof
fclaimsiscirc cumscribed,ho owever,byan nunbrokenlin neofcases h
holdingstatut esofsimilari importtomea anonly liquid datedclaims,o
orthosedeter rminedorrea adilydetermin nablefrom v vouchers, invo
oices, and such other papers within re each of accou unting
officers s. Petitioners claim was fo or a fixed a amount
andalthough respo ondenttook is ssue withthe eaccuracyof
petitioners p su ummation of itsaccountab bilities, the a
amountthereo ofwasreadily ydeterminablefromthereceipts,invoice
esandotherd documents.Thus,theclaim mwaswell w withintheCOA
Asjurisdiction nundertheGovernmentAu uditingCodeo ofthePhilippines.
Futhermore,p F petitionersmo oneyclaimwa asfoundedon naseriesofp
purchasesfort themedicalsuppliesofres spondents p publichospita
ls.Bothpartie esagreedthat tthesetransac ctionswerego overnedbyth
heLocalGover rnmentCodep provisions o onsupplyand propertyman
nagementand dtheirimplem mentingrulesa andregulation nspromulgate
edbytheCOA Apursuant t toSection383 3ofsaidCode.Petitioners
claimtherefor reinvolvedco ompliancewit thapplicable
auditinglawsandrules o onprocureme nt. Thecourtmay T yraisetheissu
ueofprimary yjurisdiction sua s sponteand ditsinvocatio oncannotbew
waivedbythe efailureof t thepartiesto argueitasthedoctrineexi
istsfortheproperdistribut tionofpower rbetweenjudi icialandadmi
inistrative b bodiesandnot tfortheconve enienceofthe eparties. oOo
LOUIS"BA AROK"C.BIRA AOGO,Petitio oner,vs.THE EPHILIPPINE ETRUTHCOM
MMISSIONOF2010,Respon ndent. G.R R.No.192935Decem mber7,2010 It
should be str I ressed that the e purpose of allowing a ad ho oc
investigatin ng bodies to ex xist is to allow w an inquiry into
matters w which the Pres sident is entitl led to know so o that he
can be properly advised and gu uided in the pe erformance of f his
duties r relative to the execution and d enforcement t of the laws
of o the land. Th here being no changes in the e government t
structure, t Court is not the o inclined to declare d such ex
xecutive powe er as nonexist tent just becau use the directio on of
the polit tical winds h changed. have T This is a pro oduct of two
consolidated d cases quest tioning the co onstitutionality of the
defunct Philippine Truth C Commission ( (PTC). In his first
official act a as Preside ent, Mr.Aquino signed Executive Order No.
1 which created a s special body to investigat te reported cases c
of graf ft and corrup ption alleged dly committed d during the
previous a administration n. ISSUE(S): denthavethe epowertocre
eatethePhilip ppineTruthCo ommissionby yvirtueofSec c31ofthe 1.
DoesthePresid nistrative Cod de, which gran nts him the power p to
reo organize his office? Is the ere a valid Revised Admin
elegationofpowerfromCo ongress,empoweringthePr residenttocre
eateapublico office? deA Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
5|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2. Did
the Execut tive Branch tr ransgressed the t budgeting powers of th
he Legislative e by the creat tion of the TC? PT 3. DoesthePresid
denthavethepowertocrea ateAdHocInv vestigatingCommittees?
sthecreationofthePTCvio olativeofthee equalprotectio onclause? 4.
Is H HELD : P Petitionsare G GRANTED . C Creation ofth hePTC
Section31con S ntemplates"re eorganization"aslimitedby ythefollowin
ngfunctionala andstructurallines:(1)rest tructuring t theinternalor
rganizationof f theOfficeoft thePresidentProperbyabolishing,cons
solidatingorm mergingunitsthereofor t transferringfu
unctionsfromoneunittoanother;(2)transferringany yfunctionund
dertheOfficeofthePresidenttoany o otherDepartm ment/Agencyo
orviceversa;or(3)transfe erringanyage encyundertheOfficeofthe
ePresidentto anyother D Department/A Agencyorvice eversa.Clearl
ly,theprovisi ionreferstor reductionofp personnel,con nsolidationof
offices,or a abolition there eof by reason n of economy or redundan
ncy of function ns. These poin nt to situation ns where a body or
an o office is already existent but b a modifica ation or alter
ration thereof f has to be effected. The creation c of an n office
is n nowherement tioned,muchl lessenvisione edinsaidprov vision. T
TheOSGsreli iancetoP.D.1 1416,asamen ndedbyP.D.N No.1772ismi
isplaced.The saidlawgave ethenPreside entMarcos t thepowertor
reorganizethe eadministrativestructureo ofthenational
lgovernmentincludingthe epowertocreateoffices a transfer
appropriations and a s pursuant to o an impendin ng transition of o
governmen nt to a parliam mentary form. . Such law w wasrepealedb
bythe1987Constitution. NoTransgres N ssionofBudge
etingPowersoftheLegisla ative O Onthecharge
thatExecutiveOrderNo.1transgressesthepowerofCongresstoappropriatefundsfortheop
perationof a apublicoffice, ,sufficeittosaythattherew willbenoapp
propriationbu utonlyanallot tmentoralloc cationsofexistingfunds a
already appro opriated. Accordingly, there e is no usurpa ation on
the part p of the Ex xecutive of the e power of Co ongress to a
appropriate fu unds. Further r, there is no o need to specify the
amount to be earmarked e for r the operati ion of the c
commissionbe ecause,inthewordsoftheSolicitorGene eral,"whateve
erfundstheCo ongresshaspr rovidedforth heOfficeof t President will
be the very source of the f the funds for the commis ssion." Moreov
ver, since the amount that would be a allocatedtoth hePTCshallbe
esubjecttoex xistingauditingrulesandre egulations,the ereisnoimpro
oprietyinthefunding. P Power ofthePresident P tocreate c AdHoc
cinvestigating gCommittee Indeed, the Ex xecutive is giv ven much
leeway in ensur ring that our laws l are faith hfully execute ed.
As stated above, a the p powers of the e President ar re not
limited d to those spe ecific powers under the Co onstitution.53
One of the recognized r p powers of the e President granted pursu
uant to this co onstitutionally ymandated duty d is the power to
crea ate ad hoc c committees.T Thisflowsfrom mtheobvious
sneedtoascertainfactsanddeterminei iflawshaveb beenfaithfully
yexecuted. T Thus, in Department of Hea alth v. Campos sano, the
auth hority of the President to issue Adminis strative Order r No.
298, c creating an in nvestigative committee c to look into th he
administrative charges filed against the employe ees of the D
Departmentof fHealthforth heanomalouspurchaseofmedicineswas m
idcase,itwasruled: upheld.Insai The Chief Executives pow T wer to
create e the Ad hoc c Investigatin ng Committee e cannot be
doubted. Hav ving been c constitutionall lygrantedfull lcontrolofth
heExecutiveD Department,to owhichrespo ondentsbelong,thePreside
enthasthe o obligationtoe ensurethatallexecutiveoffi icialsandemp
ployeesfaithfu ullycomplyw withthelaw.W WithAO298as smandate,
theinvestigat t thelegalityof tionissustained.Suchvalid
dityisnotaffec ctedbythefac ctthattheinv vestigatingtea amandtheA
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts P
PCAGC had th he same comp position, or th hat the former r used the
of ffices and facilities of the la atter in condu ucting the
inquiry s that the purpose of o allowing ad hoc investig gating
bodies s to exist is to o allow an inquiry into It should be
stressed m matterswhich hthePresiden ntisentitledto oknowsotha
athecanbep properlyadvisedandguided dintheperformanceof h
hisdutiesrelat tivetotheexe ecutionanden nforcementof fthelawsofth
heland.There ebeingnochangesinthego overnment s structure,the
Courtisnoti inclinedtodeclaresuchexe ecutivepower rasnonexist
tentjustbecau usethedirect tionofthe p politicalwinds shavechanged.
V Violation ofth heEqualProt tectionClause e A Althoughthe
purposeofth heTruthComm missionfallsw withintheinv vestigativepow
werofthePresident,theC Courtfinds d difficultyinup pholdingthec
constitutionali ityofExecutiv veOrderNo.1 1inviewofits sapparenttra
ansgressionof ftheequal p protectionclau useenshrined
dinSection1,ArticleIII(Bil llofRights)ofthe1987Con f nstitution.
The clear man T ndate of the envisioned tr ruth commiss sion is to
inv vestigate and find out the truth "conce erning the r
reportedcases sofgraftandcorruptiondu uringtheprev viousadminist
trationonly. Theintentto singleoutthe eprevious a administration
nisplain,pate entandmanif fest.Mention ofithasbeen nmadeinatle
eastthreepor rtionsoftheq questioned e executiveorde er.
Inthisregard,itmustbeborneinmindth hattheArroyo oadministrati
ionisbutjustamemberofa aclass,thatis s,aclassof p past administr
rations. It is not n a class of f its own. Not t to include past
administr rations similar rly situated constitutes c a
arbitrariness which the equal e protect tion clause cannot c sancti
ion. Such discriminating differentiatio on clearly r reverberatest
tolabelthecom mmissionasa avehicleforvi
indictivenessandselectiveretribution. oOo B BRILLANTES, C.
MANILAINTERNATIO ONALAIRPOR RTAUTHORIT TY(MIAA),petitioner, e vs.CO
OURTOFAPP PEALS,respon ndent. G G.R.No.15565 0 July20,2006 M is a
gove MIAA ernment instr rumentality ve ested with corp porate
powers s to perform efficiently e its governmental g functions. M
islikean MIAA nyothergovern nmentinstrum mentality,theonly o
difference eisthatMIAAisvestedwithcorporatepow wers. P Petitioner
Man nila International Airport Authority (MIAA) operates s the
Ninoy Aquino A Intern national Airpo ort (NAIA) C Complex in Pa
araaque City y under Execu utive Order No o. 903, otherw wise known
as a the Revised d Charter of the t Manila International Airport
Autho ority (MIAA Charter). Executive E Order No. 903 was w issued
on n 21 July 1983 by then P PresidentFerd dinandE.Marcos.Subseque
ently,Executiv veOrderNos.909and298a amendedtheM MIAACharter r. A
Asoperatorof ftheinternat tionalairport, MIAAadministerstheland
d,improveme entsandequip pmentwithin ntheNAIA C Complex. The e MIAA
Chart ter transferred d to MIAA ap pproximately 600 hectares of
land, inclu uding the run nways and b buildings (Air rport Lands
and a Buildings) then under r the Bureau of Air Transp portation.
The e MIAA Chart ter further p providesthat noportionof f
thelandtran nsferredtoMI IAAshallbed disposedofthr roughsaleor
anyothermo odeunless s specificallyap ePresidentofthePhilippine es.
provedbythe O On21March1 1997,theOffic ceoftheGovernmentCorpo
orateCounsel(OGCC)issuedOpinionNo. .061.TheOGCCopined t
thattheLocal GovernmentC Codeof1991withdrewthe eexemptionfr
romrealestat tetaxgranted dtoMIAAund derSection
A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
7|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts 2
21oftheMIAA ACharter.Th hus,MIAAnego otiatedwithr respondentCit
tyofParaaquetopaythe realestatetax ximposed b bytheCity.M
IAAthenpaid dsomeofther realestatetaxalreadydue. O 28 June 20 On
001, MIAA received Final Notices N of Re eal Estate Tax x
Delinquency y from the Cit ty of Paraaqu ue for the t taxableyears1
1992to2001. . T TheCityofPar raaque,throu ughitsCityTr
reasurer,issue ednoticesofl levyandwarrantsoflevyon
ntheAirportLandsand B Buildings.Th eMayorofth heCityofPara
aaquethreat tenedtosella atpublicauct tiontheAirpo
ortLandsandBuildings s shouldMIAAf failtopaytherealestatetax
xdelinquency.MIAAthusso oughtaclarificationofOGCCOpinionNo. .061. O
OGCCissuedO OpinionNo.14 47clarifying OGCCOpinion nNo.061.Th
heOGCCpoint tedoutthatS Section206of ftheLocal G GovernmentC
Coderequires personsexem mptfromreal estatetaxto showproofo
ofexemption. TheOGCCop pinedthat S Section21oft theMIAAChar
rteristheproofthatMIAAi isexemptfrom mrealestatet tax. M
MIAAfiledwit ththeCourto ofAppealsan originalpetit tionforprohib
bitionandinjunction,with prayerforpr reliminary injunctionort
temporaryres strainingorde er.Thepetitio onsoughttor restraintheC
CityofParaaq quefromimp posingreal e estatetaxon,l levyingagains
st,andauction ningforpublicsaletheAirp portLandsan ndBuildings.B
Butthecourt dismissed t thepetitionbe ecauseMIAA
fileditbeyondthe60day reglementary yperiod.Mean
nwhile,theCityofParaaq queposted a andpublished ctionsale.
noticesofauc A day before the A t public auc ction, or on 6 6
February 20 003, at 5:10 p.m., MIAA file ed before SC an a Urgent
Ex Parte and R ReiteratoryMo otionfortheI IssuanceofaT TemporaryRe
estrainingOrd der.Courtorderedrespondentstoceaseanddesist f
fromsellingat tpublicauctio ontheAirportLandsandB Buildings.Res
spondentsrec ceivedtheTROonthesamedaythat t theCourtissu edit.Howev
ver,responden ntsreceivedth heTROonlya at1:25p.m.orthreehours
safterthecon nclusionof t thepublicauct tion. ISSUE: W WhethertheA
AirportLandsandBuildings sofMIAAaree exemptfromr realestatetax
xunderexistin nglaws. H HELD: P Petition is GR RANTED. MIA AAs
Airport Lands and Buildings B are exempt from m real estate tax
imposed d by local g governments. M MIAAisnota governmentownedorcon
ntrolledcorpo orationbutan ninstrumenta alityoftheNa ationalGovern
nmentand t thus exempt from f local tax xation. A gove ernmentowne
ed or controll led corporatio on must be o organized as a a stock
or n nonstockcorp poration.MIA AAisnotorga anizedasastockornonst
tockcorporati ion.MIAAisn notastockco orporation b because it ha as
no capital stock divided d into shares s. MIAA has no stockhold
ders or voting g shares. Sec c 3 of the C CorporationC whosecapita
alstockisdivi idedintoshar resandxxxa authorized
odedefinesastockcorporationasonew t todistributeto otheholders
ofsuchshare esdividendsx xxx.MIAAha ascapitalbut itisnotdivid
dedintoshare esofstock. M MIAA has no stockholders or voting sha
ares. Hence, MIAA M is not a a stock corpor ration. MIAA is also
not a nonstock c corporationbe ecauseithas nomembers. Anonstockc
corporationis sonewhere nopartofits incomeisdis stributable a
asdividendst toitsmember rs,trusteesor rofficers.An
nonstockcorporationmus sthavememb bers.Evenifw weassume t that the
Gover rnment is con nsidered as th he sole memb ber of MIAA, this t
will not make m MIAA a nonstock corporation. N Nonstock cor
rporations can nnot distribut te any part of their income to their
me embers. Sec 11 1 of the MIA AA Charter m mandatesMIA AAtoremit20
0%ofitsannualgrossopera atingincomet totheNationa alTreasury.Th
hispreventsM MIAAfrom q qualifyingasa anonstockcorporation. M MIAA
is a go overnment in nstrumentality y vested with h corporate
powers p to pe erform efficie ently its gove ernmental f functions.
MI IAA is like an ny other government inst trumentality, the only
diffe erence is tha at MIAA is ve ested with c corporatepow wers.A
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W When
the law w vests in a government g i instrumentalit ty corporate
powers, the instrumentali ity does not become a c corporation. U
Unless the gov vernment inst trumentality is i organized as a a
stock or nonstock co orporation, it remains a g governmentin
nstrumentality yexercisingn notonlygover rnmentalbuta alsocorporate
epowers.Th hus,MIAAexe ercisesthe g governmental powersofem
minentdomain n,policeautho orityandthele
evyingoffeesandcharges.Atthesameti ime,MIAA e exercises allt the
powers of acorporatio on under the CorporationL Law, insofara
asthese powe ersare not inc consistent w with the provisions of th
his Executive Order. Like ewise, when the law ma akes a gover
rnment instru umentality o operationally autonomous, the instrume
entality remains part of th he National Government G m machinery
alth hough not integrated wit th the depart tment framew work. The
MIAA M Charter expressly sta ates that tran nsforming MIAA into a
separateand autonomousb bodywillma akeitsoperatio
onmorefinanciallyviable. . T There is also no n reason for r local
govern nments to tax national gove ernment instr rumentalities for
rendering g essential p publicservices stoinhabitan ntsoflocalgov
vernments.Th heonlyexceptioniswhent thelegislature eclearlyinten
ndedtotax g government i instrumentalit ties for the delivery of
essential pub blic services for sound and a compelli ing policy c
considerations s. There mu ust be expre ess language in the law
empowering e local governments to tax x national g governmentin
nstrumentaliti ies.Anydoub btwhethersuc chpowerexis
stsisresolvedagainstlocalgovernments. . T AirportLa The andsandBuil
ldings of MIA AA arepropert ty of publicd dominion unde er the
Civil Co ode, like roads, canals, r rivers,torrent ts,portsandri
idgesconstruc ctedbytheSta ate,areowne edbytheState e.Thetermp
poetsincludesseaports a andairports.A Aspropertieso ofpublicdom
minion,theAirp portLandsan ndBuildingsar reoutsidethecommerceof
fman. M MIAA is gover rnment instru umentality ves sted with corp
porate power rs, the fact tha at it collects terminal t fees and
other c chargesisofn nomoment,it doesnotrem movethechara
acteroftheai irportlandsa andbuildingst toproperties forpublic u
use.Therefore e,theyarepub blicdominionoutsidetheco ommerceofm
man.MIAAisnotsubjecttor realpropertyt taxes. oOo GOVER RNMENTSERV
VICEINSURA ANCESYSTEM M(GSIS)vs.CITYTREASUR REROFTHECITY C OFMANI
ILA December23,2009 G.R.No.186242 m 9 G isaninstr GSIS
rumentalityof ftheNationalGovernmentnot n aGOCC.AGOCC G shouldbe b
acorporatio on.Itshouldhave h stocks d divided intoshares.GSIScap
pitalisnotdivi idedintounitshared. s Also,it thasnomemb
berstospeakof. o P PetitionerGSI Sownsoruse edtoowntwo oparcelsofla
and,oneisthe eKatibakprop perty,andthe eothertheCo oncepsion A
Arroceros pro operty. Title to the ConcepsionArrocero os property
was w transferre ed to the Sup preme Court in in 2005 p
pursuanttoPr roclamationN No.835datedA April27,2005
5.BoththeGSISandtheMe eTCofManilao occupytheCo oncepsion A
Arrocerospro perty,whileth heKatibakpro opertywasun nderlease. T
Thecontrover rsystartedwh hentheCityTr
reasurerofManilaaddressedaletterto GSISPresiden ntandGenera
alManager W WinstonGarci iainformingh himoftheunp paidrealprope
ertytaxesdue eontheaforem mentionedpr ropertiesfory years1992 t
2002, brok to ken down as follows: (a) P54, 826,599 9.37 for the
Katibak K prope erty; and (b) P48,498,91.0 01 for the C
ConcepsionAr rrocerosprop perty.Thelette erwarnedoft
theinclusionsofthesubject tpropertiesin ntheschedule edOctober 3
30,2002publ licauctionof alldelinquent tpropertiesin nManilashou
uldtheunpaid dtaxesremai inunsettledb beforethat d date. T
TheCityTreas surerofMani ilaissuedsepa arateNotices ofRealtyTax
xDelinquency yforthesubje ectproperties s,withthe u usualwarning
gofseizurean nd/orsale.OnOctober8,20 002,GSIS,thro
oughitslegalcounsel,wrot tebackempha asizingthe G GSISexemptio
onfromallkin ndsoftaxes,in ncludingrealty ytaxes,under rRA8291. T
TheGSISlater ramendeditspetitiontoincludethefact tthat:(a)the
Katibakprope ertyhas,since eNovember2 2001,been leasedtoando
occupiedbyth heManilaHot telCorporatio on(MHC),whi ichhascontra
actuallybound ditselftopayanyrealtyA Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
9|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts t
taxesthatmay ybeimposed onthesubjec ctproperty;an nd(b)theCon
ncepsionArro ocerospropert tyispartlyoc ccupiedby G GSISandpartl
ytheMeTCofManila. yoccupiedby T TheRTCdismi issedthepetit
tionofGSIS.T Thus,theinstantpetitionfor rreviewonpu urequestiono
oflaw. ISSUE: W WhetherGSIS isexemptfrom mrealproper rtytax? H
HELD: P Petitionis GRA ANTED. G GSISwasestab blishedundertheCommonw
wealthAct18 86,asanonst tockcorporati ionmanagedb byaboardoft
trustees,a s statusthathas sremainedun nchangedevenwhenitope
eratedunderP PD1146,whi ichprovidedf foranewtax treatment f
forGSIS,andR RA8291,alaw wwhichreen nactedtheful lltaxexempti
ionprivilegeo ofGSISinPD1 1146.GSISis notinthe c context of Sec c
139 of LGC which w provid des for a gene eral provision on withdraw
wal of tax exem mption privile ege, and a s specialprovisi
iononwithdra awalofexemp ptionfrompay ymentofrealpropertytaxe
esinallGOCCinSec234. G GSISisaninst trumentalityo oftheNationa
alGovernmen ntnotaGOCC C.AGOCCsho ouldbeacorp poration.Itsh
houldhave s stocksdivided dintoshares. GSIScapital isnotdivided
dintounitsha ared.Also,ith hasnomemberstospeako of.Andby m
members,the tothosewhom makeupthen nonstockcorporation,and
dnotthecomp pulsorymemb bersofthe referenceist s system who are a
governmen nt employees s. Its managem ment is entrusted to a Boa
ard of Trustee es whose mem mbers are a appointedbyt thePresident.
T Thesubjectpr ropertiesunde ertheGSISnamearelikew wiseownedby
ytheRepublic c.TheGSISis butmeretrus steeofthe s subject proper
rties which have h either be een ceded to it i by the Government or
acquired a for th he enhancement of the s system. This particular p
pro operty arrangement is clea arly shown by y the fact that t the
disposal l or conveyan nce of said s subjectproper rtiesareeithe
erdonebyort thrutheautho orityofthePresident.Speci
ifically,inthecaseoftheCo oncepsion A Arrocerospro perty,itwast
transferred,co onveyed,andc cededtotheS SCthroughaP PresidentialPr
roclamation. G GSIS manages s the funds fo or the life insurance,
retire ement, surviv vorship, and disability d bene efits of all go
overnment e employeesand dtheirbeneficiaries.Thisu undertaking,t
tobesure,con nstitutesane essentialandv vitalfunction whichthe g
government,th hruoneofitsagenciesorin nstrumentaliti ies,oughttop
perform. U UndertheDoc ctrineofBene eficialUse,the eRepublicis
allowedtogr rantbeneficialuseofitspr ropertytoan agencyor
instrumentalit tyofthenatio onalgovernment.Suchgran ntdoesnotn
necessarilyres sultinthelos ssofthetax exemption. e T Thetaxexemp
ptiontheprop pertyoftheRe epublicoritsinstrumentalit tycarriesceas
sesonlyif,be eneficialuseth hereofhas b been granted, for considera
ation or other rwise, to a tax xable person. . GSIS, as a
government g in nstrumentality y, is not a t taxable juridic cal
person ho owever, it was s lost in a sen nse that statu us with
respec ct to the Kati igbak propert ty when it c contracted its s
beneficial use to MHC, a a taxable person. The real l estate taxt
of that property is valid. But such c corresponding g liability for
the payment thereof devo olves on the taxable t benefi icial user.
The e City of Man nila has to s satisfyitstaxc claimbyservi
ingtheaccrue edrealtytaxa assessmenton nMHC,asata axablebenefic
cialuserofthe eKatigbak p property. oOo INTHE EMATTEROF FTHEBREWR
RINGCONTRO OVERSIESINTHEELECTIO ON INTHE EINTEGRATE EDBAROFTH
HEPHILIPPIN NES A.M.No.0952SC 2010 December14,2 A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
10 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T
Court in an The a en banc Resolution dated June 2, 20 009 created a
Special Inves stigation Com mmittee to look into the brewing cont
troversies in the IBP elect tions, specifically in the elections of
Vic ce President for the Great ter Manila R RegionandEx
xecutiveVice Presidentoft theIBPitself andanyother relectioncon
ntroversyinvo olvingotherch haptersof t theIBP,ifany
,thatincludesasweltheel lectionoftheGovernorsfor rWesternMin
ndanaoandW WesternVisaya as. theSpecial Committeecal C
Consequently, C lled the IBPo officers involv ved toa prelim
minaryconfer rence on June 10,2009. W With respect thereto, Atty.
Vinluan then submitted a Preliminary y Conference brief on the same
day. During D the c conferenceitw wasdetermine edthattheinv
vestigationwo ouldfocusonthefollowingissuesorcont troversies: T
Thecommittee ethendisclos sedthattheco ontroversiesin nvolvedherei
inandshould beresolveda arethefollowi ing:1)the d disputeconcer
rningaddition naldelegates oftheQCCha aptertotheH HouseofDeleg
gates;2)thee electionofGov vernorfor t theGreaterMa anilaRegion(
(GMR);3)theelectionofGo overnorforW WesternVisaya asRegion;4)t
theelectionof fGovernor f Western Mindanao for M Reg gion; 5) the
re esolution of th he election pr rotests; 6) the election of the
IBP Execu utive Vide P Presidentfort 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 ns onthe pro oper
interpret tationofthe saidprovision s n of the bylaw ws. xxx It
found the Vinlua an Groups interp pretation of sec31,ArtVof e
fIBPbylaws inRes.No.XV VIII2009tobeinerrorand ddevoidofrationaland
histor ricalbases. 2. Attys. Victoria Loan nzon and Mar rite Laqui
we ere properly recognized r as delegates of the QC Chapt ter by
the dingOfficer,G GMRGovMarc cialMagsino,d duringtheelec
ctionon2009oftheGovoftheGMR,inaccordance Presid witht
theguidelinesinRes.No.XV VIII2009. 3. Atty. Manuel M Maram mba was
valid dly elected as s GMR Gov for 20092011 term. Howev ver, the
electio on of Atty. Sorian nointhespeci ialelectionthatwaspreside
edoverbyEV VPVinluanonMay2009wasanullity. 4. Atty. Erwin E Fortun
nato of the Ro omblon Chapter was duly elected e as Gov v of the
West tern Visayas Region R for 2009 2011. 5. Neithe er Atty. Nass
ser Marohoms salic nor Atty y. Benjamin Lanto L is qualified to be
el lected Vov of f Western Minda anaoRegion. 6. Theel lectionsforth
heIBPExecutiveVicePresid dentseparatel lyheldonMay y9.2009byth
heBautistaan ndVinluan Group pswerenullan ndoidforlack kofquorum.
7. Thead dministrativecomplaintagainstEVPVinluanandhisG
GroupofGovsismeritorious. ISSUE: W Whetherthefi indingsandco
onclusionsoft theCommitteearecorrect. H HELD: P Petitionis PAR
RTIALLYGRA ANTED. swiththerec T eCourtcompletelyagree Th m
commendation nsoftheSpeci ialCommittee ewithrespecttothefollowi ing
1 DeclaringA 1. Atty.Marimbaasthedulyel lectedGovernoroftheGMR
Rfor2009201 11. 2 DeclaringA 2. Atty.Fortunate easthedulye
electedGovof ftheWesternV VisayasRegio onfor200920 011term. D
Duringtheele ection,itwasA Atty.Marimba awhogarnere
edthehighestnumberofvo otesamongth hedelegatecom mparedto A
Atty.Soriano. However,inst teadofaccept tingthesaidd
defeat,Atty.Sorianothenfi iledanelectio onprotestclai imingthatA
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
11|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts t said
electi the ion was void because ther re were nond delegates who o
were allowe ed to vote. Th his then resulted in the a anomalousele
ectionofAtty.SorianoasGo ovofGMRlastMay4,2009. fAtty.Soriano T
Theelectiono ointhespecia alelectionwas sanullitybec
cause:1)Atty.Sorianohadl lostalreadyon nApril25, 2 2009; 2) the
election cond ducted by the e Vinluan Group was illega al because
it was not calle ed nor presid ded by the r regionalGoc;3
3)Atty.Sorian noisdisqualifi fiedbecausehiselectionwo ouldviolateth
herotationrulewhichtheSCrequires t be strictly implemented. to i .
Hence, Atty. Soriano cann not be voted as a well as IBP P Executive
Vi ice President for 2009 2 2011. W Withrespectt toAtty.Fortun
nate,hiselect tionasGovfor rtheWestern
nVisayasRegionwasupheldsinceheobtainedthe h highestnumbe
erofvotesam mongthethree ecandidates,a andbecauseu undertherotai
ionrule,itisn nowRomblon nChapters t turntoreprese ent. O the
nullific On cation of the election of Atty. A Marohom mslic as Gov
for f Western Mindanao M Reg gion, the Cour rt rules to u
upholdtheele ection.Atty.M Marohomslicw wonoverhis rivalAtty.Lan
ntoandwasd dulyproclaim med.Atty.Lant tofiledan e electionprotes
standimmediately,thegro oupofVinluan nissuedaReso
olutionproclaimingAtty.La antoasdulyel lectedGov w withoutafford
dingAtty.Maro ohomslicdueprocess. A Accordingly, a special elect a
tion shall be held by the present ninem man IBP Board of Govs to o
elect the EV VP for the r remainder of the term of 20092011, 2 w
which shall be e presided oer r and conduc cted by IBP
OfficerinChar O rge Justice S SantiagoKapu unan. oOo
Q Quasi Legisl lativePower rs
C CONGRESSMA ANJAMESL.CHIONGBIAN C ,petitioner,vs.HON.OSCAR
RM.ORBOS,respondent. r June22,1995 G.R.No.96754 n
T divisionof The fthecountryin ntoregionsisintendedtofa
acilitatenoton nlytheadminis strationofloc calgovernmentsbutalso t
directionof the fexecutivedep partmentswhi ichthelawrequires q
shouldhave h regionaloffices. P Pursuant to Art. A X, Sec. 18 of
the 198 87 Constitutio on, Congress passed R.A. No. 6734, th he
Organic Ac ct for the A Autonomous R Region in Mu uslim Mindana ao,
calling for r a plebiscite to be held in n the province es of
Basilan, Cotabato, D Davao del Sur r, Lanao del Su ur, Maguindan
nao, Palawan, South Cotab bato, Sultan Ku udarat, Sulu, TawiTawi, T
Za amboanga d Norte, Zam del mboanga del Sur and the cities c
Cotabat to, Dapitan, Dipolog, D Gener ral Santos, Ilig gan, Marawi,
Pagadian, P PuertoPrinces saandZambo oanga.Inthee ensuingplebis
sciteheldonN November16,1989,fourp provincesvote edinfavor o
creating an autonomous region. These of e are the prov vinces of
Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, M S Sulu and Taw wiTawi. In a
accordancewi iththeconstitutionalprovis sion,thesepro ovincesbecam
metheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMin ndanao. O Ontheotherh
hand,withrespecttoprovin ncesandcities snotvotingin nfavoroftheA
AutonomousR Region,Art.X XIX,Sec.13 o ofR.A.No.673 34provides,
Thatonlythe eprovincesan ndcitiesvoting gfavorablyin nsuchplebisci
itesshallbein ncludedin t the Autonomo ous Region in n Muslim Min
ndanao. The provinces and cities whic ch in the pleb biscite do not
t vote for inclusioninth heAutonomou usRegionshallremaininth
heexistingad dministrative regions:Prov vided,howeve er,thatthe P
Presidentmay y,byadministr
rativedetermination,mergetheexistingregions. P Pres.Aquinois
ssuedEO429Providingfo ortheReorgan nizationoftheAdministrativ
veRegionsinMindanao. T petitioner The rs contended that there is no
law which h authorizes the t President to pick certa ain provinces
and cities w withintheexis stingregions,someofwhich hdidnoteven
ntakepartint theplebecite.Theysubmitt thatwhilethe eauthority o
ofthePresiden ntnecessarily yincludesthe authoritytom
merge,theauthoritytomergedoesnoti includetheau uthoritytoA Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
12|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts r
reorganize.Th herefore,theP President'sau uthorityunder rRANo.6734
4to"mergeex xistingregion ns"cannotbe construed t toincludethe
authoritytor reorganizethe em.Todosow willviolatethe erulesofstatu
utoryconstruc ction. A Also,theycont tendthatArtX
XIX,Sec13ofRA6734isbe ecause(1)itu undulydelegat
teslegislativepowertothePresident b authorizing by g him to "me
erge [by admi inistrative det termination] the existing regions" r
or at any rate pr rovides no s standar dfortheexerciseof h
thepowerde elegatedand(2 2)thepowerg grantedisnot
texpressedinthetitleofthelaw. Issues: 1. Wheth herthepower
rto"merge"a administrative eregionsisleg gislativeinch
haracter,orwhetheritisex xecutivein character,and,ina any event,whe
etherArt.XIX X,Sec13isinv validbecause itcontainsno
ostandardtoguidethe dent'sdiscreti ion; Presid 2. Wheth her
Congress has provided d a sufficient standard in conferring on n
the Presiden nt the power to merge admin nistrativeregions. H HELD:
P ionisDISMISSED Petit S . 1. Powerto"merge"administrativ a
veregions T The creation and subsequent reorganiz zation of adm
ministrative regions have been by the President pu ursuant to a
authority granted to him by law. In conferring on o the President
the pow wer "to mer rge (by admi inistrative d determination
n)theexisting gregions"follo owingtheesta ablishmentof ftheARMM,C
Congressmere elyfollowedth hepattern s setinpreviou slegislationd
datingbackto otheinitialor rganizationof administrativ veregionsin
1972.Thecho oiceofthe P Presidentasd delegateislog gicalbecauset
thedivisiono ofthecountry yintoregions isintendedto ofacilitateno
otonlythe a administration noflocalgove ernmentsbut talsothedire
ectionofexecu utivedepartm mentswhicht thelawrequir resshould h
have regional offices. It ha as been held that, "while the power to
o merge adm ministrative re egions is not expressly p providedforin
ntheConstitu ution,itisapo owerwhichh hastraditional llybeenlodge
edwiththePr residenttofac cilitatethe e exerciseofthe epowerofgen
neralsupervis sionoverloca algovernment ts."Theregion nsthemselves
sarenotterri itorialand p politicaldivisi onslikeprovi
inces,cities,m municipalitiesa andbarangay ysbutare"mer
regroupingso ofcontiguousprovinces f fora dministrativepurposes a
s." 2. Suffic cientstandard d d,alegislative standardnee
ednotbeexpr ressed,itmay ysimplybega atheredorim mplied.Nor
Inthequestionofstandard n needitbefoun ndinthelawc challengedbe
ecauseitmayb beembodiedi inotherstatutesonthesam mesubjectast
thatofthe c challengedleg gislation. W While Art. XIX X, Sec 13
prov vides that "Th he provinces and cities wh hich do not vo ote
for inclusi ion in the Autonomous R Region shall remain r in the e
existing adm ministrative re egions," this provision p is subject s
to the e qualification n that "the P President may y by administ
trative determ mination merg ge the existin ng regions." This T
means th hat while non assenting p provincesand citiesaretor
remaininther regionsasdes signatedupon nthecreationoftheAutono
omousRegion, ,theymay n nevertheless b regrouped with contiguous
provinces be s forming oth her regions as the exigency y of
administration may r require. The regrouping r is s done only on o
paper. It involves i no more m than a redefinition of o the lines
separating s a administrative eregionsfort
thepurposeoffacilitatingt theadministra ativesupervis sionoflocalgo
overnmentun nitsbythe P Presidentand insuringthee efficientdelive
eryofessentia alservices. T Thereorganiz ationofthere egionsinE.O.
No.429isba asedonreleva antcriteria,to owit:(1)contiguityandgeo
ographical f features; (a) transportation t n and commu unication
facil lities; (3) cult tural and language groupings; (4) land d
area and p population;(5 5)existingreg gionalcentersadoptedbys
severalagenci ies;(6)socio economicdev velopmentpr rogramsin t
theregionsan d(7)numberofprovincesandcities.A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
13|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W With
respect to t the change e of regional center c from Zamboanga Z Ci
ity to Pagadia an City, petitioner contend ds that the d
determination nofprovincialcapitalshasa alwaysbeenb byactofCongr
ress.Administ trativeregionsaremeregro oupingsof c contiguous
provinces for ad dministrative purposes. Th hey are notte
erritorial and political subd divisions like provinces, p c cities,
municip palities and barangays. The ere is, therefo ore, no basis
for contendin ng that only Congress C can change or d determinereg
gionalcenters.Thepowert toreorganize administrativ veregionscar
rrieswithitthepowertod determine t theregionalce enter. oOo
ENZOM.TANA ADA,petitione er,vs.HON.JUAN U C.TUVER RA,respondent.
LORE G. .R.No.L6391 15 Apr ril24,1985 A statutes, including those
of local appli All ication and pr rivate laws, sh hall be published
as a condition for their effectivity, w which shallbeg
ginfifteenday ysafterpublica ationunlessadifferent d
effectivitydateisfixed fi bytheleg gislature. people'sright
tobeinforme edonmatters sofpubliccon ncern,aright recognizedin
nSection6,Ar rticleIVof Invokingthep t the1973Phili tution,1aswe
ellastheprinc ciplethatlawstobevalida andenforceab blemustbepu
ublishedin ppineConstit t theOfficialGa zetteorother rwiseeffective
elypromulgat ted,petitioner rsseekawrit ofmandamus stocompelre
espondent p publicofficials stopublish,an ndorcauseth hepublication
nintheOfficia alGazetteofva ariouspreside entialdecrees s,lettersof
instructions,g generalorders s,proclamations,executiveo n
orders,letterofimplementationandadm ministrativeor rders. T The
responde ents, through the Solicitor r General, wo ould have th his
case dism missed outrigh ht on the gro ound that p petitioners ha
ave no legal personality p or r standing to bring the ins stant
petition n. The view is s submitted th hat in the a absence of an
ny showing th hat petitioner rs are person nally and dire ectly
affected or prejudice ed by the alle eged non p publicationof f
thepresidentialissuancesinquestion2 2saidpetition nersarewitho
outtherequis sitelegalpers sonalityto institutethism mandamuspro
oceeding,they yarenotbeing g"aggrievedp parties"within nthemeaning
gofSection3,Rule65of t theRulesofCo ourt. rhand,petitio U
Upontheothe onersmaintainthatsinceth hesubjectoft thepetitionco
oncernsapubl licrightandit tsobjectis t tocompelthe
performanceofapublicdu uty,theyneed notshowany yspecificinter
restfortheirp petitiontobegivendue c course. Issues: 1.
Whetherthepe W etitionershavelegalstandin ng. 2. Whetherpublic W
cationintheO OfficialGazette eisrequired. H HELD: 1. Petiti
ionershaveLe egalStanding g C Clearly, the ri ight sought to t be
enforce ed by petition ners herein is s a public rig ght recognize
ed by no less s than the f fundamentalla awoftheland d.Ifpetitioner
rswerenotall lowedtoinstit tutethisproce eeding,itwou uldindeedbed
difficultto c conceive of an ny other pers son to initiate e the
same, considering c th hat the Solicit tor General, the t governme
ent officer g generallyemp oweredtorep presentthepe eople,hasente
eredhisappea aranceforrespondentsinth hiscase. 2. Public
cationintheOfficialGazet tteisrequired d A Article2ofthe
eCivilCode: A Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
14 4|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
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." T interpreta The ation given by y respondent is
in accord with this Cou urt's construc ction of said article. a In
a lo ong line of d decisions,this Courthasrul ledthatpublic
cationintheO OfficialGazett teisnecessary yinthosecase eswherethel
legislation it tselfdoesnot tprovidefori itseffectivity
dateforthenthedateof publicationis smaterialfor determining
itsdateof e effectivity,wh ichisthefifte eenthdayfollo owingitspubl
licationbutn notwhenthelawitselfprov videsforthed datewhen it
tgoesintoeff fect.Responde ents'argumen nt,however,islogicallycorr
rectonlyinsof farasitequate estheeffectivityoflaws w withthefacto
ofpublication. .Consideredi inthelightof otherstatutesapplicableto
otheissueat hand,thecon nclusionis e easilyreached dthatsaidArt
ticle2doesno otprecludeth herequiremen ntofpublicati ionintheOffi
icialGazette,e evenifthe la awitselfprov videsfortheda
ateofitseffec ctivity. T Theclearobje ctofthelawi istogivetheg
generalpublic cadequatenot ticeofthevar riouslawswhi icharetoregu
ulatetheir a actionsandco onductascitizens.Withouts suchnoticean
ndpublication n,therewould dbenobasisfo ortheapplicat tionofthe m
maxim" ignora antialegisnon nexcusat."Itw wouldbetheh
heightofinjust ticetopunishorotherwiseburdenacitiz zenforthe t
transgression ofalawofwh hichhehadno onoticewhats soever,noteve
enaconstruct tiveone. T TheCourther rebyordersre espondentsto
opublishinth heOfficialGaz zetteallunpub blishedpresid
dentialissuan nceswhich a areofgeneral application,a andunlesssop
published,the eyshallhaven nobindingforc ceandeffect. G.R.No.L63915
Decem mber29,1986 6 W When alawta akeseffect T Thesubjectof f
contentionisArticle2ofth heCivilCodep providingasfo ollows: "
"ART.2.Laws sshalltakeef ffectafterfifte eendaysfollow wingthecom
mpletionofthe eirpublication nintheOfficia alGazette, unless
sitisotherwis seprovided.T ThisCodeshal lltakeeffecto
oneyearaftersuchpublicati ion." T Theclause" un nless it is othe
erwise provide 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. P Publicationis indispensable
eineverycas se,butthelegislaturemayi initsdiscretio onprovideth
hattheusualf fifteenday p periodshallbe eshortenedo orextended.A
Anexampleis theCivilCode ewhichdidno otbecomeeff fectiveafterfif
fteendays f fromitspublic cationintheO OfficialGazette ebut"oneyea
araftersuchpu ublication."Th hegeneralruledidnotappl lybecause it
twas"otherw wiseprovided." L Laws whichmust m besubjec ctedtopublic
cation T Court holds that all statutes, The s inclu uding those of
local applic cation and pr rivate laws, shall be published as a c
conditionfort theireffectivit ty,whichshall lbeginfifteen
ndaysafterpu ublicationunle essadifferent teffectivityda ateisfixed
b bythelegislatu ure. C Covered by th his rule are pr residential
decrees and exe ecutive orders spromulgated dby the President in
the exercise e of legislativepow werswheneve erthesamear
revalidlydelegatedbythel legislatureor, ,atpresent,di
irectlyconferr redbythe C Constitution.A Administrative erulesandre
egulationsmustalsobepub blishediftheir rpurposeisto
oenforceorimplement e existinglawpu ursuantalsotoavaliddeleg
gation. m intern nal in nature, , that is, reg gulating only the
personn nel of the Interpretative regulations and those merely a
administrative e agency and not the publ lic, need not be
published. Neither is publication p required of the e socalledA
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
15|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts
lettersofinstr ructionsissue edbyadminis strativesuperiorsconcernin
ngtheruleso or guidelines tobefollowedbytheir s subordinatesi
intheperform manceoftheirduties. A Accordingly, e even the charter
of a city must m be publ lished notwith hstanding tha at it applies
to o only a port tion of the n nationalterrit tory anddirec ctly
affects on nly the inhabit tantsof that place. p All pres
sidentialdecr rees must be published, p includingeven n,say,thosena
amingapublicplaceaftera afavoredindiv vidualorexem mptinghimfro
omcertainpr rohibitions o requiremen or nts. The circu ulars issued
by b the Moneta ary Board mu ust be publish hed if they ar re meant
not merely to interpretbutt to"fillinthede etails"oftheC
CentralBankA Actwhichthat tbodyissupposedtoenforc ce. H However, no
publication p is s required of the instructio ons issued by y, say,
the Min nister of Soci ial Welfare on n the case s studies to be
made in peti itions for ado option or the rules laid do own by the
he ead of a gove ernment agen ncy on the a assignmentso
orworkloadof fhispersonne elortheweari ingofofficeun
niforms.Parenthetically,m municipalordin nancesare n notcoveredby
ythisrulebut tbytheLocalG GovernmentC Code. T Thepublicatio
onmustbein fulloritisno opublicationa atallsinceitspurposeisto
oinformthep publicofthecontentsof t thelaws.Asco orrectlypoint
tedoutbythe epetitioners,t themeremen ntionofthenu umberofthep
presidentiald decree,the t title of such decree, d its whe
ereabouts (e.g g., "with Secre etary Tuvera" "), the suppos sed
date of eff fectivity, and in a mere s supplementof ftheOfficialG
Gazettecannot tsatisfythepu ublicationrequ uirement. oOo P
PAGUIO,A. SMA ARTCOMMUNICATIONS,Inc. I (SMART) ),petitioner,vs
s.NATIONAL MUNICATIONS SCOMMISSIO ON(NTC),respondent p . TELECOMM
G. .R.No.151908 8&152063/4 408SCRA679 12Au ugust2003 I
questioning the validity or In o constitution nality of a rule e or
regulation n issued by an n administrati ive agency, a party p need
n exhaustad not dministrativeremedies r befor regoingtocou
urt.Thisprinci ipleapplieson nlywheretheact a oftheadm ministrative
a agency concer rned was perfo ormed pursuan nt to its quasi
ijudicial funct tion, and not when w the assa ailed act perta ained
to its r makingor rule rquasilegislativepower. P Pursuant to it ts
rulemakin ng and regula atory powers, the National l Telecommun
nications Com mmission (NT TC) issued M Memorandum m Circular No.
1362000 (the ( Billing Ci ircular), prom mulgating rule es and
regula ations on the billing of t telecommunic es.Thesaidci
ircularprovid dedfor,amon ngothers,the verificationo oftheidentific
cationand ationsservice a addressofeac chpurchasero ofprepaidSIM
Mcardsandth heforthelengthofvalidity yofprepaidcallcardsand
SIMcards w whichshallbe eforatleasttw wo(2)yearsfr romthedateo
offirstuse. L Later,theNTC CissuedanotherMemorand dumdatedOct
tober6,2000w whichreads: Thisistorem mindyouthat thevalidityo
ofallprepaidc cardssoldon 07October2 2000andbeyo ondshallbev
validforat leasttwo(2)y yearsfromdat teoffirstusep pursuanttoM
MC1362000. ll CMTS opera ators are rem minded that al ll SIM packs
used by subscribers of pre epaid cards sold on 07 In addition, al O
October2000 andbeyonds shallbevalid foratleasttw wo(2)yearsfr
romdateoffi irstuse.Also, thebillingun nitshallbe o onasix(6)sec
condspulseef ffective07Oct tober2000. F Forstrictcomp pliance. P
Petitionersfile edbeforetheR RegionalTrial
lCourt(RTC)anactionfordeclarationof fnullityofthe eMemorandum
mCircular N No.1362000 0CircularandtheNTCMem morandumdat
tedOctober6,2000,allegin ngthattheNT TChasnojuris sdictiontoA
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
16 6|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts r
regulatethesa aleofconsum mergoodssuch hastheprepa aidcallcards
sincesuchjur risdictionbelo ongstotheDe epartment o ofTradeandIn
ndustryunder rtheConsume erActoftheP Philippines. R Respondent N
NTC and its co odefendants filed a motio on to dismiss the case on
the t ground of petitioners' failure to e exhaustadmin
nistrativerem medies.TheRT TCgrantedthe eplaintiffs'ap
pplicationfor theissuanceo ofawritofpr reliminary injunction.Def
fendantsfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichwas sdenied. a special
civi R Respondent N NTCthusfiled il action forcertiorari and
prohibition with w theCourt tof Appeals which w was g granted and
annulled a and set aside th he previous ruling r of RTC C.
Petitioners' ' motions for r reconsideration were s subsequentlyd
denied.HTP. ISSUE: W Whether the RTC R has jurisdiction in cas ses
of nullifica ation of a pur rely administr rative regulat tion
promulga ated by an a agencyinthee exerciseofitsrulemakingp powers.
H HELD: T Thepetitionsa areGRANTED D. A Administrative e agencies
possess p quasilegislative or o rulemakin ng powers an nd quasijudi
icial or admi inistrative a adjudicatoryp powers.Quasi
legislativeor rrulemakingpoweristhep powertomak kerulesandre
egulationswhi ichresults in delegated le egislation tha at is
within th he confines of f the granting g statute and the t
doctrine of o nondelega ability and s separabilityof fpowers. N
Nottobeconf fusedwiththe equasilegislativeorrulem makingpower
ofanadminis strativeagenc cyisitsquasijudicialor a administrative
eadjudicatory ypower.This isthepower tohearandd determineque
estionsoffact towhichthe legislative p policy is to ap pply and to
decide d in acc cordance with h the standards laid down n by the
law itself in enfo orcing and a administering thesamelaw
w.Theadminis strativebody exercisesitsq quasijudicial powerwhen
itperformsin najudicial m manneranact twhichisesse entiallyofane
executiveora administrative enature,wher rethepowert
toactinsuchmanneris incidentaltoo orreasonably necessaryfor
rtheperform manceoftheex xecutiveorad dministrative dutyentruste
edtoit.In c carrying out their t quasijud dicial function ns, the
administrative offic cers or bodies s are required d to investigat
te facts or a ascertain the existence of facts, f hold hearings,
weigh h evidence, an nd draw concl lusions from them as basis s for
their o officialactiona andexerciseo ofdiscretionin najudicialna
ature. gthevalidityo orconstitution nalityofarule eorregulation
nissuedbyan nadministrati iveagency,ap partyneed Inquestioning n
exhaust administrative not a e remedies before b going to court. Th
his principle applies only where the act a of the a administrative
eagencyconce ernedwasper rformedpursu uanttoitsqua asijudicialfun
nction,andno otwhentheas ssailedact p pertainedtoit tsrulemaking
gorquasilegi islativepower r. r,thedoctrine
eofprimaryjurisdictionap ppliesonlywh heretheadministrativeage
encyexercises sitsquasi Inlikemanner udicialoradju udicatoryfunc
ction.Thus,in ncasesinvolvi ingspecialized ddisputes,thepracticehas
sbeentorefer rthesame ju t toanadminist trativeagency yofspecialco
ompetencepu ursuanttothe edoctrineofp primaryjurisd diction.Theob
bjectiveof t doctrine of the o primary jur risdiction isto o guidea
cour rt in determin ning whether it should refr rain from exe
ercising its ju urisdiction un ntil after an administrative a e
agency has determined some s question or some as spect of some e
question a arisinginthep proceedingbe eforethecour rt.Itappliesw
wheretheclaim misoriginally ycognizableinthecourtsa andcomes
intoplaywhen neverenforce ementofthec claimrequires stheresolutio
onofissueswh hich,undera regulatorysc cheme,has b beenplacedw
withinthespec cialcompeten nceofanadmi inistrativebody;insuchca
ase,thejudicia alprocessiss suspended p pendingreferr ralofsuchissu
uestotheadm ministrativebo odyforitsview w. H However,whe
erewhatisass sailedistheva alidityorcons stitutionalityo
ofaruleorreg gulationissue edbytheadmi inistrative a agencyinthep
performanceo ofitsquasileg gislativefunct tion,theregul
larcourtshav vejurisdiction ntopassuponthesame.A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
17|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T
Thedetermina ationofwheth heraspecificr ruleorsetofr rulesissuedby
yanadminist trativeagency ycontravenesthelawor t theconstitutio
oniswithinth hejurisdictionoftheregular rcourts. t bar, the issu
uance by the NTC of Memorandum Circ cular No. 1362000 and its
Memorand dum dated In the case at O October 6, 2000 was pursu uant
to its qu uasilegislative e or rulemak king power. As A such,
petitioners were ju ustified in invokingtheju
udicialpoweroftheRegionalTrialCourttoassailthec constitutionali
ityandvalidit tyofthesaidissuances. oOo EASTERNSHIPPING S LIN
NES,petitioner r,vs.COURTOF O APPEALSand a DAVAOPILOTS P ASSOC
CIATION,resp pondent. 6 29June1998 G G.R.No.11635 W determin What
nes whether an a act is a law w or an administrative issua ance is
not its form but its nature. n Here as a we have a already said,
the t power to fix f the rates of f charges for services, s includ
ding pilotage service, has always a been re egarded as le
egislativeinch haracter. P Private respon ndent Davao Pilots
Associa ation (DPA) elevated e a com mplaint again nst petitioner
Eastern Ship pping Line ( (petitioner)fo
orsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesalleg gingthatthefo ormerhadren
nderedpilotag geservicestopetitioner b between Janu uary 14, 1987 7
to July 22, 1989 with to otal unpaid fees f of P703,290.18. Desp
pite repeated demands, p petitioner faile ed to pay. Pet titioner
assail led the consti itutionality of f the Executive e Order (EO)
1088 upon which w DPA b basesitsclaim ms. T TheRegionalT
TrialCourt(R RTC)grantedt thepetitionof ftheprivatere espondentwh
hichrulingwa asaffirmedby ytheCourt o ofAppeals(CA A).HTP. ISSUE: W
WhetherEO1 stitutional. 088isuncons H HELD: T Thepetitionis
sDENIED. P Petitionerinsi iststhatitsho ouldpaypilot tagefeesinac
ccordancewit thandonthebasisofthem memorandum mcirculars
issuedbythe PPA,theadm ministrativebo odyvestedun nderPD857w
withthepowe ertoregulate eandprescrib bepilotage f fees. In assaili
ing the constitutionality of f EO 1088, the e petitioner re
epeatedly ask ks: "Is the priv vate responde ent vested w
hpowertointerpretExe wit ecutiveOrderNo.1088?" n Shi ipping Associa
ation of the Ph hilippines vs. Court C of Appeals,the Supre eme
Court, th hrough Mr. InPhilippine Interisland eV.Mendoza,
,upheldthev validityandco onstitutionalit tyofExecutiv veOrder1088
8innouncert tainterms. JusticeVicente W Weaptlyitera teourpronou
uncementinsaidcase, a viz.: y that E.O. No o. 1088 shoul ld not be
con nsidered a sta atute because e that would imply the It is not
an answer to say w withdrawalof fpowerfromt thePPA.Wha atdetermines
whetherana actisalawor anadministrativeissuance eisnotits f
formbutitsna ature.Hereas swehavealre eadysaid,thepowertofixt
theratesofch hargesforserv vices,includin ngpilotage s
service,hasalw waysbeenreg gardedaslegis slativeinchar racter. x
xxxxxxxxx onotethatE.O O.NO.1088pr rovidesforad djustedpilotag
geservicerate eswithoutwit thdrawingthe epowerof Itisworthyto t
thePPAtoim pose,prescrib be,increaseordecreaserat tes,chargeso
orfees.There easonisbecau useE.O.No.1088isnotA Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
18 8|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts m
meant simply to fix new pilotage p rates. Its legislativ ve purpose
is s the "rationa alization of pi ilotage service e charges, t
throughtheim mpositionofun niformandad djustedratesf forforeignand
dcoastwiseve esselsinallPh hilippineports s. x xxxxxxxxx W
Weconcludet thatE.O.No.1 1088isavalid dstatuteand thatthePPA
Aisdutyboun ndtocomplyw withitsprovisions.The P PPAmayincre
easetheratesbutitmaynot tdecreasethe embelowthos semandatedb
byE.O.No.108 88..... W Weseenorea asontodepart tfromthisrul
ling.TheCour rt'sholdingcle earlydebunks spetitioner's insistenceon
payingits p pilotagefeesb basedonmem morandumcirc cularsissuedb
bythePPA.B BecausethePP PAcircularsareinconsisten ntwithEO 1
1088,theyare evoidandineffective."Adm ministrativeor rexecutiveact
ts,ordersand dregulationss shallbevalido onlywhen t theyarenotco
ontrarytothe elawsortheC Constitution." Asstatedby thisCourtinLand
L Bank of the Philippine es vs. Court o Appeals,[t] of
]heconclusive eeffectofadm ministrativeconstructionis snotabsolute
e.Actionofan nadministrati iveagency m maybedisturb
bedorsetasidebythejudi icialdepartme entifthereis anerrorofla
aw,agraveab buseofpower rorlackof ju urisdiction,or rgraveabuse
eofdiscretion nclearlyconflictingwitheit thertheletter rorspiritoft
thelaw."Itis axiomatic t that an admin nistrative agen ncy, like
the PPA, P has no discretion d whether to impl lement the law w or
not. Its duty is to e enforce it. Una arguably, ther refore, if
ther re is any confl lict between the t PPA circu ular and a law w,
such as EO 1088, the la atterprevails. oOo ICEEXPORTE
ERS,INC.,petit tioner,vs.HON N.RUBEND.TORRES T ,resp pondent.
PHILIPPINEASSOCIATIONOFSERVI G.R.No.101279/212SCRA2996 August1992 A
Administrative e rules and re egulations mus st also be pub blished
if their purpose is to t enforce or implement ex xisting law p
pursuant toavalid v delegatio on.Interpretat tiveregulation
nsandthosemerely m internal linnature,tha atis,regulatin ngonlythe
p personnel of th he administrat tive agency an nd not the pub
blic, need not be published. Neither is pub blication required of
the s called letter so rs of instructio ons issued by administrativ
ve superiors co oncerning the rules of guidelines to be fo ollowed
by t their subordinates in the pe erformance of f their duties. For
lack of proper p publica ation, the adm ministrative ci irculars in
q question maynot n beenforced dandimpleme ented. P Philippine
Association of Service Impo orters (PASEI I, for short) is the
larges st national organization o o private of e employment a and
recruitm ment agencies duly license ed and autho orized by the e
Philippine Overseas Em mployment A Administration n(POEA)toe
engageinthe businessofobtainingover rseasemploym mentforFilipi
inolandbased dworkers, includingdom mestichelpers. O OnJune1,199
91,Departmen ntofLaboran ndEmployment(DOLE)Sec cretaryissued
dDepartment tOrderNo.16 6,Seriesof 1 1991,tempora arilysuspendi
ingtherecruit tmentbypriv vateemploymentag e enciesofFilipinodo o
omestichelper rsgoingto H HongKong.T TheDOLEitsel lf,throughthe
ePOEAtookov verthebusine essofdeployin ngsuchHongKongboundw
workers. P Pursuant to th he above DOLE circular, the t POEA issu
ued Memoran ndum Circular No. 30, Ser ries of 1991, providing G
GUIDELINES o the Govern on nment proces ssing and dep ployment of
Filipino F dome estic helpers to Hong Kon ng and the a
accreditationo ofHongKongrecruitmenta agenciesinten ndingtohireF
Filipinodomes stichelpers.Thiswasfollow wedbythe issuance of
Memorandum Circular C No. 37, 3 Series of 1991, 1 on the processing
of f employment t contracts of f domestic w workersinHo ngKong.HTP
Pforprohibitio ontoannulth heaforementio onedDOLEan ndPOEAcircul
lars. ISSUE: W Whether the Department D Order O and Mem morandum Ci
irculars are void v for noncompliance wi ith the requir rements of
p publicationan ndfilingwitht theOfficeofth heNationalAd
dministrativeRegister H HELD: A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
19|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts T
Thepetitionis sGRANTED. thy that the assailed a circu ulars do not
prohibit p the petitioner p from engaging in i the recruit tment
and It is notewort d deployment o Filipino la of andbased wo orkers
for overseas depl loyment. A careful c readi ing of the challenged
c a administrative eissuancesdisclosesthatthesamefallw withinthead
dministrative andpolicingp powersexpre esslyorby n necessaryimp
plicationconfe erreduponth herespondent ts. A Asaptlyobser
rvedbytheSolicitorGenera al, xxxThealleg gedtakeover[ [ofthebusines
ssofrecruitin ngandplacing gFilipinodom mestichelpersinHongkong]
]ismerely a remedial me a easure, and expires e after its i purpose
sh hall have been attained. Th his is evident t from the ten nor of
the A Administrative eOrderNo.16 6thatrecruitm mentofFilipin
nodomestich helpersgoing toHongkong byprivateem mployment a
agenciesareh erebytempor rarilysuspend dedeffectiveJu uly1,1991.
xxxThejust ificationforthetakeovero oftheprocess singanddeplo
oyingofdome estichelpers forHongkong gresulting f from the restr
riction of the scope of peti itioners busin ness is confin ned
solely to the t unscrupul lous practice of private e employment a
agencies victim mizing applicants for empl loyment as do omestic
helpe ers for Hongk kong and not the whole r recruitmentbu
usinessinthePhilippines. H However,desp pitetheadmin
nistrativecircularsbeinga validexercise eofthepolice epowerasdel
legatedtotheexecutive b branchofGov vernment,they
yareneverthelessinvalid, defectiveand dunenforceab bleforlackof
properpublic cationand f filingintheOf fficeoftheNa ationalAdmin
nistrativeRegister.Thisreq quirementisp providedforb byArticle2o
oftheCivil C Code,Article5 5oftheLaborCodeandSect tions3(1)and
d4,Chapter2, ,BookVIIofth heAdministra ativeCodeof1 1987. F
Further,asenu 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 o only the perso onnel of the
administrative a e agency and not the publ lic, need not be
published. . Neither is publication p r requiredofth esocalledlet
ttersofinstru uctionsissuedbyadministr rativesuperiorsconcerning
gtherulesofg guidelines t tobefollowed dbytheirsubo ordinatesinth
heperformanc ceoftheirduti ies. W Weagreethat tpublicationm
mustbeinful llofitisnopublicationat
allsinceitspurposeistoinformthepublicofthe c contentofthe laws. F
Forlackofpro operpublicatio on,theadministrativecircu
ularsinquestionmaynotbe eenforcedand dimplemented. oOo CORO
ONA,petitioner r,vs.UNITEDHARBORPIL LOTSASSOCIA ATIONOFTH
HEPHILIPPIN NES,responden nt. G.R.No.1119 953/283SCRA A31 12Decemb
ber1997 A a general rule, As r notice an nd hearing, as s the
fundame ental requirem ments of proce edural due pro ocess, are
esse ential only w when an adm ministrative bo ody exercises
itsquasijudic cialfunction. In I the perform mance of its executive
or legislative f functions, such h as issuing rul les and regula
ations, an adm ministrative bod dy need not co omply with the e
requirement ts of notice a hearing. and P Pursuanttoits spowerofcon
ntrol,regulation,andsuper rvisionofpilot tsandthepilo otageprofessi
ion,thePhilipp pinePorts A Authority(PPA A)promulgate edPPAAO03
385whichem mbodiedthe"R RulesandRegulationsGove erningPilotage
eServices, t theConducto fPilotsandPilotageFeesin nPhilippineP
Ports."Theser rulesmandate e,inter alia,th hataspiringp pilotsmust
b holders of pilot licenses be sand must tra ain as probat tionary
pilots in outports for f three mon nths and in th he Port ofA
Alcaraz, Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
20 0|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts M
Manilaforfou rmonths.Itis sonlyafterthe eyhaveachiev vedsatisfacto
oryperforman ncethattheyaregivenperm manentand r regular appoin
ntmentsbythe ePPAitselftoexerciseharbo
orpilotageuntiltheyreachtheageof70,unlesssooner rremoved b
byreasonofm mentalorphys sicalunfitnessbythePPAGeneralManager. g S
Subsequently, PPA issued PPAAO No. 0492provid ding that "all
existing regu ular appointm ments which have h been p previously
issu ued either by the Bureau of Customs C or the PPA shall re
emain valid up p to 31 December 1992 only y"andthat "all appointme
ents to harbor r pilot position ns in all pilota age districts sh
hall, hencefort th, be only for r a term of on ne (1) year f from
date of ef ffectivity subje ect to yearly renewal r or can
ncellation by the t Authority after conduct t of a rigid eva
aluation of p performance ." R Respondents q questioned th he
implement tation of PPA AAO No. 049 92 before the Department of
Transport tation and C Communicatio on(DOTC)for rPPAsnonco
ompliancewiththerequire ementofpublichearingbu utthenDOTC Secretary
G Garciainsisted dthatthemat tterwaswithin nthejurisdict
tionoftheBoa ardofDirecto orsofthePPA. .Respondents sappealed t
thisrulingtot theOfficeofth hePresident(O OP). T TheOPissued
danorderdire ectingthePPA Atoholdinab beyancetheim mplementation
nofPPAAON No.0492.Init tsanswer, t the PPA coun ntered that sa aid
administr rative order was w issued in n the exercise of its
administrative co ontrol and s supervisionov verharborpil
lotsunderSection6a(viii i),ArticleIVo
ofP.D.No.857,asamended,andit,alon ngwithits
implementingguidelines,w wasintendedto orestoreorde
erintheportsandtoimprovethequality yofportservic ces. T
TheOP,throug ghthenAssist tantExecutive eSecretaryfo
orLegalAffairsRenatoC.Co orona,dismissedtheappea al/petition a and
opined th hat PPAAO No. 0492doe es not forbid,, but merely
regulates, the e exercise by y harbor pilot ts of their p
profession inP PPA'sjurisdictionalarea. A regards the alleged
"absence of amp As ple prior cons sultation" befo ore the issuan
nce of the ad dministrative order, the S Secretary cited Section 26
of P.D. No. 857, 8 which merely requires the PPA to consult with
"relevant Go overnment a agencies." He concluded that the law has
been sufficiently com mplied with by b the PPA in i issuing the e
assailed a administrative eordersincet thePPABoard dofDirectors
siscomposed oftheSecreta ariesoftheDO OTC,theDepa artmentof P
PublicWorks andHighways s,theDepartm mentofFinanc ce,andtheDe
epartmentofE Environment andNaturalR Resources, a well as the as e
DirectorGen neral of the National N Econo omic Develop pment Agency
y, the Adminis strator of the e Maritime IndustryAutho ority(MARINA
A),andthepr rivatesectorre epresentative e. R Respondents f filed a
petitio on forcertiora ari, prohibition and injunct tion with pray
yer for the is ssuance of a temporary t r restrainingord
deranddamagesbeforethe eRegionalTrialCourt(RTC C)whichgrant
tedthesame.H HTP. ISSUE: W WhetherPPA olatingdueprocessoflaw.
AONo.0492isvoidforvio H HELD: T Thepetitionis sDENIED. R
Respondents a argue that du ue process wa as not observed in the
ado option of PPA AAO No. 0492 allegedly because no h hearing was
conducted c wh hereby "relev vant governme ent agencies" " and the
pilo ots themselve es could ventilate their v views.Theyar
reobviouslyr referringtoth heprocedural aspectofthe enactment.Fo
ortunately,th heCourthasm maintained a aclearpositio ninthisregar
rd,astanceithasstressedintherecentcaseofLumiq qued v.Hon.Ex
xevea,wherei itdeclared t that"(a)slong gasapartyw wasgiventheo
opportunityt todefendhisi interestsindu uecourse,he
cannotbesaidtohave b beendeniedd dueprocessof
flaw,forthisopportunity tobeheardistheveryess senceofduep
process.More eover,this c constitutional mandateisde eemedsatisfie
edifapersonisgrantedan nopportunitytoseekrecon
nsiderationoftheaction o orrulingcomp plainedof." A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
21|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W
Whilerespond dentsemphasi izethatthePh hilippineCoas stGuard,"whi
ichissuesthelicensesofpilotsafteradm ministering t thepilots'exa
minations,"w wasnotconsul
lted,thefactsshowthattheMARINA,whichtookove erthelicensingfunction
o ofthePhilippi ineCoastGuard,wasdulyr representedin ntheBoardo
ofDirectorsof fthePPA.Thu us,petitioners scorrectly a argued that,
there t being no n matters of f naval defen nse involved in i the
issuan nce of the adm ministrative order, o the P PhilippineCoa
astGuardneed dnotbeconsu ulted. N Neitherdoest thefactthatth
hepilotsthem mselvesweren notconsulted inanywayta aintthevalidit
tyoftheadmi inistrative o order.Asagen neralrule,not ticeandhearin
ng,asthefund damentalrequ uirementsofp proceduraldu ueprocess,are
eessential o only when an n administrat tive body exercises itsqu
uasijudicialfu unction. In th he performance of its exe ecutive or
legislative fun nctions, such as issuing ru ules and reg gulations,
an administrativ ve body need d not comply with the r requirements
ofnoticeandhearing. H However, the license of a harbor h pilot is i
granted in the form of an a appointme ent which allo ows them to
engage in p pilotageuntilt theyretireatt theage70yea ars.Thisisav
vestedright. T Therefore, it is i readily app parent that PP PAAO
No. 04 492 unduly restricts r the right r of harbo or pilots to
enjoy their p profession bef fore their com mpulsory retir rement.
In the past, they enjoyed e a mea asure of security knowing that
after p passing five ex xaminations and a undergoin ng years of on
nthejob train ning, they wo ould have a lic cense which they t
could u useuntiltheir retirement,u unlesssoonerr revokedbyth
hePPAformen ntalorphysicalunfitness.U Underthenew wissuance, t
theyhavetoco ontendwitha anannualcanc cellationoftheirlicensewh
hichcanbetem mporaryorpe ermanentdep pendingon t theoutcomeo
oftheirperfor rmanceevalua ation.Veteran npilotsandne eophytesalike
earesuddenl lyconfronted withone y year terms wh hichipso facto
oexpire at the e end of that period. Renew wal of their li icense
is now w dependent on o a "rigid e evaluationofp
performance"whichiscond ductedonlyaf
fterthelicensehasalreadybeencancelle ed.Hence,theuseofthe t term
"renewal." It is this preevaluation p n cancellation n which prima
arily makes PPAAO P No. 04 492 unreasonable and c constitutionall
lyinfirm.Inarealsense,iti isadeprivatio onofproperty
ywithoutdueprocessoflaw w. oOo C COMMISSION EROFINTER RNALREVENU
UE,petitioner,vs.COURTOF FAPPEALS,re espondent. G.R.No.119761/261SC
CRA237 29Augus st1996 W When an adm ministrative rule is merely in
nterpretative in nature, its s applicability needs nothin ng
further tha an its bare is ssuance for it t gives no real l
consequence more than what w the law it tself has alrea ady
prescribed d. When, upon n the other h hand, theadmi
inistrativerule egoesbeyond dmerelyprovid
dingforthemeansthatcanfacilitate f orre enderleastcumbersome t
implement the tationofthela awbutsubstan ntiallyaddstoorincreasesth
heburdenofthose t governed d,itbehoovesthe t agency t accord at le
to east to those directly d affecte ed a chance to be heard, an nd
thereafter to be duly inf formed, before e that new is
ssuanceisgive entheforcean ndeffectoflaw w. F FortuneTobac
ccoCorporatio on("FortuneT Tobacco")ise engagedinthe
emanufactureofdifferentb brandsofcigar rettes T The Philippin ne
Patent Off fice issued to t the corporation separa ate certificate
es of tradem mark registra ation over " "Champion," " "Hope," and
"More" cigar rettes. The in nitial position n of the Com mmission
of Internal I Reve enue (CIR, h hereafter)was
stoclassify'Champion,''Ho ope,'and'More'asforeignb brandssinceth
heywereliste edintheWorldTobacco D Directory as belonging to o
foreign com mpanies. How wever, Fortu une Tobacco changed the e
names of 'Hope' to 'H HopeLuxury'and 'More' to o 'PremiumMo ore,'
thereby removing the e said brands from the fore eign brand ca
ategory.Ad v valorem taxeswereimposed donthesebra andsatthefoll
lowingrate: ADVA BRAND ALOREM TAX RATE E.O.22and a RA695 56 E.O.273
HopeL LuxuryM.100 0's 40% 45%A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas
22|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
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. L Later on, Rep public Act ("R RA")
No. 7654 4was enacted d and became e effective on n 03 July 199 93.
It amende ed Section 1 142(c)(1)ofth heNationalIn nternalRevenu
ueCode("NIR RC")toread;as sfollows: S Sec.142.Cigars sandCigarett
tes. x xxxxxxxxx ( (c)Cigarettes packedbyma achine.The ereshallbele
evied,assessed dandcollecte edoncigarette espackedbym machinea t
tax at the ra ates prescribed below ba ased on the constructive
manufacture er's wholesale price or the t actual m manufacturer'
'swholesalep price,whicheverishigher: ( On locally (1) y
manufacture ed cigarettes which arecu urrently classi ified and
taxe ed at fiftyfive e percent (55 5%)or the e exportationof
fwhichisnotauthorizedby ycontractoro otherwise,fift tyfive(55%)
providedthat ttheminimum mtaxshall n notbelesstha anFivePesos(
(P5.00)perpa ack. ( (2)On other lo ocally manufactured cigaret
ttes, fortyfive percent (45% %)providedth hattheminimu umtaxshalln
notbeless t thanThreePes sos(P3.00)pe erpack. x xxxxxxxxx T Two
daysbefo orethe effecti ivity of RA 76 654, CIR issued Revenue
Memorandum M m Circular No. 3793 ("RMC 3793") d declaringthat
xxxSinceth hereisnoshow wingwhoamo ongtheabove elistedmanuf
facturersofth hecigarettesbearingthe s saidbrandsar retherealown
ner/sthereof, f,thenitfollow wsthatthesam meshallbeco onsideredfore
eignbrandfor rpurposes o determining thead valoremtax pursu of uant
to Sectio on 142 of the e National Int ternal Revenu ue Code. In
effect, the a aforesaid bran nds of cigare ettes,viz: "HO OPE,"
"MORE" and "CHAMPION" being manufactured by Fortune e Tobacco C
Corporationw weresubjected dtothe55%ad a valoremtax xoncigarettes
sbeingconsid deredlocallym manufacturedcigarettes b bearingaforei
ignbrand. O On30July199 93,theCIRassessedFortun neTobaccoforad
valoremtaxdeficiency t yamountingto oP9,598,334.00forcing F
FortuneTobac ccotofileap petitionforrev viewwiththe eCourtofTax
xAppeals(CT TA)whichdec claredRMC37 793tobe d defective, inva alid
and unen nforceable for the noncom mpliance with publication and a
prior hear ring requirem ments. The C CourtofAppea als(CA)affirm
medthedecisio onofCTAina allrespects.HT TP. ISSUE: A Alcaraz,
Atienza,Binay,Brillantes,Bustonera,Ca
abanting,DeAlban,Lacsina,Liu,Mabulac,Nado onga,Paguio,Pla
aton,Robles,Var rgas 23|
USTFACULTY U YOFCIVILLA AW2A20112012 A ADMINISTRAT
TIVELAW,LAWONPUBLIC COFFICERS&ELECTIONLA AWCaseDiges sts W
Whether the publication of o RMC 3793 3, filing of co opies thereof
with the UP Law Center and prior he earing are n necessaryfori
itsvalidity,eff fectivityande enforceability. . H HELD: P Petition
DENIED. RMC 3793 is invalid, defective and d unenforceab ble due to
no onpublication n and for lack k of public h hearing. Itshouldbeun
nderstandable ethatwhenan nadministrati iveruleismer relyinterpreta
ativeinnature e,itsapplicabi ilityneeds n nothing furthe er than
its ba are issuance for f it gives no o real consequ uence more
than t