1.

No.
The creation of an administrative
body by the President cannot be
justified under the Revised
Administrative Code (RAC).
RAC only speaks of restructure and
reorganization.
These words
cannot comprehend creation of new
office.
The creation of new office finds
basis on the inherent duty of the
President to faithfully execute the
laws.
Since he has the power to ensure
that laws are faithfully executed,
he may conduct investigations.
Because he can conduct
investigations,
he may create
offices which may conduct the
investigations.
2.
Yes.
An administrative agency may have
the power to investigate, but does
not have the power to adjudicate.
These are two different powers.
To investigate is to examine,
explore, inquire or probe.
To
adjudicate is to adjudge, arbitrate,
decide or determine.
In investigation, there is fact finding
but there is adjudication. On
the other hand, adjudication already
includes the power to investigate.
3.
No.
The trial court has no jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction is with the
HLURB.

HLURB can decide issues involving

specific performance filed by buyers of
a subdivision lot or condominium.
It is even allowed to award
damages.
In the problem, the issue exactly
falls within the jurisdiction of HLURB.
The complaint should have
been filed first in the said agency.
Although the court is not divested of
jurisdiction over the case,
the
complaint must be filed first with the
proper administrative agency since it
is a remedy provided under the law.
Before a remedy may be supplied
by courts,
relief must be first
obtained in the administrative body in
charge.
This is because intricate
matters may be involved which
require the technical expertise and
knowledge of the said agency.
4.
Yes.
Since the agency concerned has
rule-making power,
it can issue
the regulation.
Its rulemaking power is derived
from the law which created it.

5. No.

The regulation is not invalid.

Subordinate legislation allows the

congress to delegate the authority to
promulgate rules and regulation to an
administrative agency,
to
effectuate the policy and implement
the law.
This is because it is impractical, if
not impossible for Congress to
anticipate situations that may be met
in carrying the law into effect.

All that is required is that the

regulation should be (1) germane to
the purpose of the law, and that (2)
it is not in contradiction to but in
conformity with the standards
prescribed by law.
6.
Yes.
This is because there is sufficient
standard that will guide the delegate
in exercising the authority
protection of the right of
overseas Filipino workers.

7.
Yes.
It is a valid delegation of power to
the President.
Fixing of revenue targets may be
delegated by the congress to the
President so long as there is an
adequate standard that will guide the
President in the exercise of that power.
In this problem, there is a standard
that will guide the President.
The
delegated power to the President to fix
revenue targets is canalized within
the banks to keep it from overflowing

8.
Yes.
Congress may legislate by just
declaring a broad policy goal.
In this
kind of legislation, it leaves the
details and implementation to the
judgment of administrative agency.
The policy is the safeguard. If
there is no policy or safeguard in the
law, then it is invalid.

9.
No.

A writ of prohibition will not apply

since it is an exercise of a quasilegislative function of the agency.

10.
It is valid.
Just because there is a provision in
the rules that is not contained in the
law it seeks to implement,
does
not mean that it is not germane to the
law.
In the problem, the agency is
authorized to fill in the details of the
law in view of implementing and
effectuating its policy.
The agency may fill in the details
because it has the technical expertise
and knowledge over the matters
involved.
The details supplied by the agency
are not necessarily void, so long as
these are not contradictory to but
consistent with the law it seeks to
implement, and so long as they are
not contrary to laws, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.

11.
Yes.
The provincial auditor may file the
complaint with the Tanodbayan since
he is authorized by law to do so.
He is not required to resolve first the
issue in his office before filing a case
with the Tanodbayan.
On the part of Tanodbayan, it can
entertain the case even if a motion or
opposition is still pending with the
provincial auditor.

12.
No, there was no undue delegation.
This is because they are
empowered to issue rules and
regulations
Congress may delegate to the
agency the power to fill in the details
in the execution, enforcement or
administration of law.
The only requirement is that that
the law is complete in itself or fixes a
standard to forestall the violation of
the principle of separation of powers.
In this case, the law sufficiently
describes what job must be done,
who is to do it, and what the scope of
his authority is.
It is sufficiently determinate. The
exercise of agencys power is
canalized within the banks to keep it
from overflowing.
Although the agency is allowed to
exercise discretion, it is limited.
There are standards in the law which
guides the exercise of discretion of the
executive official.

13.
No.
This is because an agency is not
allowed to make rules and regulations
which contravene the Constitution.
In order to be valid, an
administrative rule must not
contravene the Constitution.
As
between the rules issued and the
Constitution, the latter prevails.
In this case, a livestock has been
included in the agrarian reform
although the Constitution explicitly
prohibits it.
In doing so,
the administrative
agency exceeded it power and the

administrative order must be stricken

down as unconstitutional.
Rules of administrative bodies must
be in harmony with the Constitution.
They cannot amend or
extend the Constitution.
In case of conflict between them,
the latter prevails.
14.
No, it cannot be amended.
This is because it is contrary to the
law it seeks to implement.
An administrative rule must fall
within the limits of the law.
In this case, it has not been done.
The administrative agency is bound
with what is provided in the law.
It cannot go beyond the scope
intended by law.
The administrative rule is confined
with implementing the law or putting it
into effect.
The rules promulgated cannot be
inconsistent with the law. It cannot
extend or amplify the law.
Otherwise, it will not be a valid
exercise of rule making power, but an
attempt by the agency to legislate.
The spring cannot rise higher than
its source.
It is inconsistent with the law and
therefore void.

15.
Yes, it is valid since it conforms to
the law.
The Omnibus rule which made the
local agency liable is embraced in the
law it seeks to implement.
The law says it is either the
principal or local agency which should
pay for repatriation.
The Omnibus rule only provided the
circumstance under which the local
agency may be liable.
Besides, there were sufficient
standards laid down in the law which
may guide the delegate in rule
making.
The standard given is the protection
of OFWs dignity and his human rights.
If the OFWs body is left stranded in
a foreign land while awaiting the result
of litigation,
his dignity and human
rights will be affected.
There is no doubt that the rule that
was issued, which made the local
agency liable,
conforms to the
purpose and standard of the law.
16.
No,
there is no need for prior
hearing, consultation and publication
for their validity.
This is because the circulars are
only interpretative in nature,
and
not strictly speaking administrative
regulations.
The only purpose of the said
circular is to administer and supervise
the implementation of the law.
It does not affect the
substantive rights of the parties.

It does not increase the burden

of those governed.

17.
Yes, it is valid.
This is because POEA has the authority
to promulgate the said regulation
pursuant to law which created it.
It has rulemaking as well as
adjudicatory functions.
There is also sufficient standard that
guides POEA in the exercise of its
rulemaking function.
The standard is to protect the rights of
the overseas Filipino workers to fair
and equitable practices. This
standard is found in the charter of the
said agency

18.
No, it cannot be delegated.
As a rule, the legislation of what the
law should be cannot be delegated.
What can be delegated is the
discretion to determine how the law
may be enforced.
This delegation is called the power
of subordinate legislation.
Through this, administrative
agencies can fill in the details of the
law which the Congress may not have
the opportunity or competence to
provide.
These regulations have the force
and effect of a law.

19.

No, there was no denial of due

process.
Due process in administrative law is
served when a party has been given
the opportunity to seek for
reconsideration.

20.
Yes, it is valid.
This is because the administrative
rule is not contrary to the law that
created POEA

21.
Yes, the regulation issued was valid.
This is because the agency which
promulgated it has the authority to the
same under the law which created it
The regulation just filled in the
details of the law. It merely clarified
the kind of infringement prohibited in
the law.

22.
Yes.
Administrative rules and regulations
enjoy the presumption of
constitutionality and legality until they
are set aside.
This is because the Congress is
presumed to have known the law at
the time they were making it.
A co-equal branch is accorded great
respect by the court.

23.
No, it is valid.
As a rule, notice is hearing is
required only when an administrative

body is exercising its quasi-judicial

function.
If it involves an exercise of a quasilegislative function, notice and
hearing is not essential.

24.
Yes, it is ineffective.
This is because it has not been filed
in the UP Law Center nor was it
published.
An administrative regulation must
both be filed in UP Law Center and
published, before it becomes
effective.
It is wrong to say that filing with UP
Law Center is no longer necessary just
because the respondent knew of its
existence.
Strict compliance with the rules is
mandatory and may not be dispensed
altogether.
Due process requirements of
publication may not be disregarded.
25.
Yes, it is ineffective since it was not
filed with the UP Law Center as
required under the law.
The memorandum is not merely
interpretative but an implementation
of the mandate of the law.
Hence, it must be filed with the UP
Law Center.
The memorandum is also
unreasonable since the filing fee was
unjust, unfair and not proportionate to
the service.

26.
Yes, it has to be published.
Although the circular issued in this
case is not a law, it has to be
published since it implements the law.
A circular has the same force and
binding effect as a law.
This is the
reason why it has to be published.
Thus, a circular, like law, takes effect
after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette,
unless it is
otherwise provided.
Moreover, since the circular prescribes
a penalty for its violation, the more
reason to require publication.
Before the public may be bound by the
circular, especially its penal provision,
it must be first published in order that
the people will be informed of said
contents and penalties.
27.
No, it is not valid.
This is because there is no standard
in the law that may guide provincial
boards to determine whether
probation act shall apply in their
province.
The Probation act does not fix or
impose any standard to guide the
provincial boards in the exercise of
their discretionary functions.
What was granted is a roving
commission which enables them to
exercise arbitrary discretion.
It leaves the entire operation or non
operation of the law in their hands.
The discretion was arbitrary
because it is absolute and unlimited.
It is bound by no rule, - limited by no
principle.

The taking of effect of the law is

based solely on the will of the
provincial boards
They have the power of suspending
the law.
It is an improper and unlawful
delegation of legislative power.
Hence, it is void.

28.
No, it is not effective.
This is because it lacks publication and
filing with the UP Law Center.

Since it did not satisfy these

requirements, the memorandum is
ineffective.
If it is ineffective, it has no binding
effect.
Hence, it must be struck down.

29.
No, it is not effective.
Because it was not published nor filed,
it cannot be enforced and
implemented.
Article 2 of the New Civil Code
provides that it should be published.
If not published, such rules
cannot be a basis of sanction against
any party of persons.
Also, in Tanada vs Tuvera, it was held
that administrative rules must be
published if their purpose is to
implement an existing law pursuant to
a valid delegation.
30.
Yes, SEC can issue an order granting
affirmative relief.

This is because the power of an

administrative agency are not only
those which are expressly conferred to
it,
but also those which are
reasonably necessary in the exercise
of their express powers.
In this case, SEC has incidental
power to grant affirmative relief since
it is reasonably necessary in the
exercise of its adjudicative power.
To deprive SEC of this power would
render the agency inutile,
because it would become
powerless to regulate and implement
the law.
31.
Yes
It must be sustained.
The construction given to a statute
by an administrative agency is entitled
to great weight by the courts.
32.
Yes, the President may transfer offices.
This finds basis under the Revised
Administrative Code.
It is an
express grant to the President that he
may reorganize executive offices.
The purpose is to achieve
simplicity, economy and simplicity.
33.
Yes, the President may also abolish
an executive office.
This finds basis under the Revised
Administrative Code.
It is an
express grant of power to the
President that he may restructure,
consolidate, merge or transfer one
department to another.
This grant of power also
comprehends the power to abolish an
executive office.
34.

Yes, the President may create an

executive office.
This is justified under the faithful
execution clause.
Since the President has the duty to
ensure that laws are faithfully
executed,
he may conduct
investigations.
Since he
may conduct investigation,
he
may create investigative office.

35.
Yes, it is invalid.
This is because the agency cannot
adjudicate, it can only investigate.
The power to adjudicate is not among
the powers granted to it by law.
Adjudication is not one of its functions.
An exercise of a power which did not
exist in the first place is void.
36.
No, it does not have jurisdiction.
This is because there is nothing in the
enabling act of that agency that gives
it jurisdiction for the petition for
certiorari.
Jurisdiction is conferred by law or
constitution.
As a rule, the grant of jurisdiction on a
quasi-judicial agency must be
expressed in its enabling act.
It
cannot be implied.
Thus, an agency cannot grant itself
the jurisdiction which the law or
constitution did not give him.

37.

Yes, RTC has jurisdiction.

If a rule or regulation is issued
pursuant to a quasi legislative
function of an agency,
it is the RTC
which has jurisdiction,
not Court of
Appeals.

38.
No, it is not valid.
This is because it is unreasonable.
In order for a rule to be valid, it
must be reasonable and fair.
The
rule must show a reasonable relation
to the purpose the law tries to
achieve.
If there is no reasonable relation,
then the rule is invalid.
It infringes on the examinees right
to liberty. The agency has no right to
dictate on the reviewees as to how
they should prepare themselves for
the licensure examinations.

The enforcement of the resolution is

not a guarantee that the alleged
leakages will be eradicated or
minimized.
What the agency should have done
is to find the source of the leakage and
stop it there.

39.
No, the order issued by the
administrative agency is not a penal
statute.
This is because the statute itself did
not make the violation thereof
unlawful.

An administrative agency cannot

make a violation of an action a penal if
the law does not make it penal.
It cannot carve out it in the law what is
not there.

40.
Yes, the circular is valid.
This is because the rule was issued
pursuant to the authority granted to
the administrative agency.
An administrative agency may be
empowered to fix the penalties when
the discretion is limited by a standard
fixed in the law.
In this case, the fine imposed was not
in conflict with the law.
The said
regulation was only executing or
implementing the law.
There is already a criminal offense
defined and punished under the law.
The administrative agency only
provided the details.

41.
Yes, he exceeded his authority.
This is because he made a rule
punishing electro fishing when it is
punishable in the law itself.
Since the act is not prohibited under
the law, the Secretary is powerless
to penalize it.
Penalizing such act is devoid of any
merit.

If the intention of the law is to penalize

it, it could have been easily written in
the law. But this was not done.
The power to declare what acts should
constitute as an offense cannot be
delegated to an administrative body.
This power is expressly reserved to the
legislative.

42.
Yes.
As between the basic law and rule
and regulation,
the basic law
prevails.
43.
Yes.
If an administrative order extends
or is in conflict with the law,
it is
considered as an attempt of the
administrative body to legislate.
44.
No, it is not a rule or regulation.
This is because the said circular
merely interpreted the law.
It only provided the meaning of
compensation
It did not add any duty or burden to
those governed.
It merely stated or circularized the
opinion of the administrative body as
to how the law should be construed.
Its purpose is only to advise
employers.
45.

No, it need not be published.

This is because it is only interpretative
in nature.

46.
Yes, the memorandum is valid.
This is because it complies with the
reasonableness requirement.
Reasonableness means that the rule
has a reasonable connection with the
purpose which the law is trying to
achieve.
In this case, there is a clear
relationship between the rule and the
purpose of the law.

47.
Yes.
Administrative bodies may be vested
with quasi judicial powers.
It will clog the docket of courts, if there
is no conferment of jurisdiction to
administrative bodies.
Besides, they are deemed experts on
the matter.
The need for technical knowledge and
speedy disposition of cases is the
reason for the conferment of
jurisdiction to administrative bodies.
To know whether an administrative
body has quasi-judicial power, all that
needs to be done is to look at its
enabling act.
48.

No, they are not considered courts.

Administrative agencies are executive
offices.
Hence, an agency cannot impose its
own judgment upon the judiciary.
The court may still determine whether
or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion on the part administrative
body exercising quasi judicial function.
49.
Yes, the agency has the authority to
issue the cease and desist order

Although the law that created the

agency did not expressly state that it
has that power, such power is
necessarily included in the exercise of
its express powers.
In other words, in the exercise of it
express power,
the issuance of
cease and desist order is perforce
implied.
Otherwise, it will be
reduced to a toothless agency.

50.
No, the court may not take the case.
Court will refuse to entertain a case
when it is within the province of an
administrative agency to resolve.
This is because such agency has
special knowledge and technical skills
with respect to the subject matter.
51.
No, it cannot apply.
Exhaustion of administrative remedy
does not apply when the
administrative agency acted pursuant
to its rule making power.

It only applies when the administrative

agency is acting pursuant to its quasi
judicial power.

52.
Yes, it is correct to invoke the
authority of the court.
When the legality or
constitutionality of a rule issued
pursuant to the rulemaking power of
an agency is assailed,
the court
has jurisdiction to pass upon the
same.
53.
No, it cannot operate as res judicata.
This is because res judicata only
applies to judicial or quasi judicial
proceedings.
It does not apply to the exercise of
administrative function.
In the problem,
the
resolution was administrative in
nature. It was borne out of a fact
finding investigation.
There was
no adjudication upon the rights,
obligations or liabilities of parties
before them.

54.
Yes, the comelec can punish for
contempt.