I-A

An administrative agency is any government authority, other than a court and a

legislature, that affects the state and its citizens through rule-making, adjudication, and
implementation. Its functions are primarily executive but it exercises some form of legislative
and judicial powers.

An administrative agency is a general term that covers any government authority that
can act as an executive body that serves public interests, which is the reason (rationale) for its
existence; it shall not represent any private interests. The administrative agencies act as a
mechanism that provides expertise and organizational capability for the three branches of
government. An administrative agency may be created by executive order; as in EO 100, s. 1986
that created PIA. legislation; as in RA 10844 that created DICT. constitutional provision; as in
Art. 9 that created CSC, COMELEC and COA. An agency is wholly within the power of the law
that created it, that prescribes its powers and functions. It may also be abolished in the same
manner it is created if such abolition is justified by the law.

I-B
Delegation of powers is the act whereby a political authority invested with
certain powers turns over the exercise of those powers, in full or in part, to another
authority.

Delegation to the Congress. Fundamentally, legislative power is an attribute of

sovereignty, in that the Constitution itself, the fundamental law of the State, is a
legislation of the sovereign people. ... Section 1, Article VI states that “Legislative
power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines

Accordingly, with the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of
governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, the rigidity
ofthe theory of separation of governmental powers has, to a large extent, been relaxed by
permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislature and the vesting of larger amount
of discretion in administrative and executive agencies and officials, not only in the execution of
laws but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations and the adjudication of claims
and disputes calculated to promote public interest

I-C

Doctrine of qualified political agency or alter ego principle means that the acts of the
secretaries of the Executive departments performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. (Villena v.
Secretary of the Interior, G.R. No. L46570, April 21, 1939).

Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various
executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases
where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated
in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive

I-D
Presumption of regularity is a principle applied in evidentiary evaluation that
transactions made in the normal course of business are assumed to have been
conducted in the usual manner unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
As a general rule, official acts enjoy the presumption of regularity, and the
presumption may be overthrown only by evidence to the contrary. When an act is
official, a presumption of regularity exists because of the assumption that the law tells
the official what his duties are and that he discharged these duties. G.R. No. 154652

I-E

The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents a litigant from seeking a remedy in

a new court or jurisdiction until all claims or remedies have been exhausted(pursued
as fully as possible) in the original one. The doctrine was originally created by
case law based on the principles of comity.

The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests

on the presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to
pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. There are both legal and practical
reasons for the principle.

II
A ministerial duty is one which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the
exercise of discretion in its performance. On the other hand, a discretionary duty is that
which by its nature requires the exercise of judgment. (Carino v. Capulong, 222 SCRA
593)

III

The Test to determine validity of delegation are Completeness test and

sufficiency standard test.

In completeness Test the law must be complete in all its items and
conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate
the only thing he will have to do is enforce it, while Sufficiency standard Test
there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority. Adequate standards are public interest,
public welfare, decency and good order, justice and equity, public safety, public
policy, greater national interest, etc.

IV
The requisites of Administrative Due Process pursuant to Ang Tibay v. CIR are;

 Right to a hearing;
 Tribunal must consider evidence presented;
 Decision must have something to support itself;
 Evidence must be substantial;
 Decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
 The Board or its judges must act on its or their independent consideration
of the facts and the law of the case, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision;
 Decision must be rendered in such a manner that the parties to the
controversies can know the various issues involved and the reasons for
the decision rendered

V
The requisites of validity of a rule made by a delegated legislative power are;

1. It must be issued on the authority of law;

2. Not contrary to law and Constitution;
3. Reasonable;
4. Publication
 VI

The petition for prohibition and injunction on the ground that implementation of
the reorganization is a constitutional violation in favor of respondent Lalito Pelino should
be dismissed.

It is premature for him to raise constitutional violation of the appropriation laws as

an issue. Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states:

No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the

President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

On the other hand, Section 3 of EO 430 provides:

SECTION 3. Funding. — The financial resources needed to carry out the provisions of
this Executive Order shall be taken from funds available in the BIR: Provided, That the
total cost of the approved staffing pattern at full implementation shall not exceed
available funds for Personal Services.

Respondents did not cite any BIR employee who suffered a diminution of rank
and salary as a result of the issued RTAOs. Neither did they cite any BIR employee who
was removed from office as a result of the transfers. Failing these, we assert the
presumption of regularity of the issuance of the RTAOs - that Commissioner
Vinzons-Chato issued the RTAOs as part of a bona-fide reassignment of selected BIR
employees to streamline the Bureau’s services.

Being BIR employee, Pelino focused their objections on security of tenure. In the
case of Pelino, respondent object to the specter of a transfer. Under the law, any
employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil Service
Commission. The trial court should dismissed the case as to Pelino, who both failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. As we held in National Power Corporation v. Court
of Appeals

The settled rule is before a party may seek the intervention of the courts, he
should first avail of all the means afforded by administrative processes. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery is still available, with a procedure
prescribed pursuant to law for an administrative officer to decide the controversy, a
party should first exhaust such remedy before resorting to the courts.

Wherefore, The petition is denied.