V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Flashcards
Define “Administrative Procedure”
A broad term which encompasses procedure in RULE-MAKING (e.g., publication, effectivity, fixing of rates, public participation, licensing, etc.)
Also encompasses procedure in adjudication (e.g., rules on contested cases, notice, hearing, cross-exam, MFR, etc.)
Rules of Procedure in Administrative Procedures
In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense [Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. v. NLRC].
Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses. As a general rule, a finding of guilt in administrative cases, if supported by substantial evidence will be sustained by this Court [Civil Service Commission v. Colanggo].
Administrative Due Process
While administrative agencies are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, they cannot entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character [Ang Tibay v. CIR].
Due process as a constitutional precept does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board v. Bernabe]
Effect of Decisions Rendered without Due Process
A decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally by means of a separate action or proceeding where it is invoked [Garcia v. Molina].
Cardinal Primary Rights (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
“Hearing Considers Support, Substance Presents Independent Issues”
- Right to a hearing (includes the right of a party to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof)
- The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
- Decision must be supported by evidence.
- Evidence must be substantial.
Quantum of Proof: Substantial Evidence
a. The amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion [Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court]
b. An administrative proceeding is different from a criminal case and may proceed independently thereof. The quantum of proof in the latter is different, such that the verdict in one need not necessarily be the same as in the other. A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case [Miralles v. Go].
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
6. The judge must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy (not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision)
7. Decision must be rendered in such a manner as to let the parties know the various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered
Should the defendant be afforded a right to cross-examine witnesses in administrative proceedings?
YES
The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process.
Can a reviewing officer be the same person as the maker of a decision under review?
NO
In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. [Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA]
Is the defendant entitled to a copy of the investigation report?
If there is an investigating committee appointed by the disciplinary authority, that committee report cannot be mandated to furnish a copy thereof.
A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed against him.
[Pefianco v. Moral]
Examples of due process in administrative proceedings
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following:
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and
(4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.
Right to Seek Reconsideration vis a vis due process
Right to Seek Reconsideration which is availed of is incompatible with a claim of denial of due process.
• Vivo v. PAGCOR: any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the government employee therein was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the administrative agency (in that case, CSC).
Matthews Test in Due Process
The identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors:
(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action;
(2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and
(3) the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail
When are notice and hearing required?
GR: Not required
When required:
- When the law specifically requires it; or
- When it affects a person’s status and liberty
Examples of when notice and hearing are NOT required
- When there is urgent need for immediate action [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion];
- When there is tentativeness of administrative action, i.e. the person affected is not precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing at a later time without prejudice to them;
- When notice and hearing have been proferred, but the right to exercise them have not been claimed;
- Discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact [Suntay v. People];
- If it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse;
- When it involves rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises, unless law provides otherwise; or
- In the valid exercise of police power.
Required Notice and Hearing Under the Admin Code
Required Notice and Hearing under the Admin. Code
● Contested cases [Sec. 11, Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]
● Insofar as practicable, to certain licensing procedures, involving grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license; i.e. when the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing [Sec. 17(1), Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]
● All licensing procedures, when a license is withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled [Sec. 17(2), Chapter 3, Book VII, Admin. Code]
Exceptions to required notice and hearing under the Admin Code
Exceptions
Notice and hearing not required in cases of
1. Willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations or
2. When public security, health, or safety require otherwise [Sec. 17(2), Chapter 3, Book. VII, Admin. Code].
Discretion exercised by an officer vis a vis due process
Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution; and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing.
How are establishments affected by an ex parte cease and desist order afforded due process?
Where the establishment affected by an ex parte cease and desist order contests the correctness of the prima facie findings of the Board, the Board must hold a public hearing where such establishment would have an opportunity to controvert the basis of such ex parte order. That such an opportunity is subsequently available is really all that is required by the due process clause of the Constitution in situations like that we have here. [Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA]
Promulgation
Promulgation is the delivery of the decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication. [Neria v. Commissioner of Immigration]
Operative date of promulgation
Jurisprudence provides that the operative date of promulgation is the date when the resolution was voted and resolved by the Board. [Sichangco v. The Board of Commissioners of Immigratio]
Jurisdiction of administrative agencies
Courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact [Guy v. Ignacio].
Jurisdiction is conferred by law
• The enabling law must be carefully examined.
• Reason: It can only act if it is authorized by law.
• Split jurisdiction not favored
President’s power of deportation
The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. That power may be exercise by the Chief Executive “when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation. When the Chief Executive finds that there are aliens whose continued in the country is injurious to the public interest he may, even in the absence of express law, deport them.
SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippine Islands shall not be deported expelled or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the Governor-General except upon prior investigaton, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than three days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses.
Exception to doctrine of primary jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception. Judicial intervention, however, should be granted in cases where the claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. The present case, falls within the exception considering that proof of their Philippine citizenship had been adduced, such as, the identification numbers issued by the Bureau of Immigration confirming their Philippine citizenship, they have duly exercised and enjoyed all the rights and privileges exclusively accorded to Filipino citizens, i.e., their Philippine passports issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. [Guy v. Ignacio]
It is beyond cavil that the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship. And a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings. However, the rule enunciated above admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are concerned.
When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.
Who has exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases?
The Collector of Customs
The exclusive jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a Court of First Instance from assuming cognizance over such cases. The Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture proceedings constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of such proceedings without any interference from the Court of First Instance. [De la Fuente v. De Veyra]
Is a franchise issued by Congress required for a public utility to operate?
NO
Franchise issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. In many instances, Congress has seen it fit to delegate this function to government agencies, specialized particularly in their respective areas of public service. [PAL v. CAB]
