Quasi-Legislative Power

on 8:00 PM in Case Digests, Notes, Political Law

0
Delegation of Legislative Power
Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation; Limitations

o
o
o

rule-making power
cannot contravene a statute or the Constitution
rules are not laws but have the force and effect of laws - partakes of

the nature of statute

o
enjoy presumption of legality - therefore courts should respect and
apply them UNLESS declared invalid; all other agencies should likewise
respect them
Q: Distinguish between Legislative and Quasi-Legislative power.
A: Legislative power is vested in the Legislature while quasi-legislative
power is in the nature of subordinate legislation or the rule-making power
delegated to administrative bodies. Legislative power is plenary while quasilegislative is not plenary and therefore subject to limitations e.g.
Constitution, statute, and administrative law limitations such as the tests for
valid delegation. Legislative power includes the power to determine what the
law is and how it shall be applied. Quasi-legislative power only includes the
power to determine how the law is to be applied but not what the law is;
administrative bodies cannot determine the legality or illegality of an act,
NOT UNLESS they are duly authorized by Congress.
Q: Distinguish between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial power.
A: Judicial power is original, vested in the judiciary. Quasi-judicial power is
derivative, a product of valid delegation of power to administrative bodies.
Judicial power includes the determination of rights and obligations
conclusively while quasi-judicial power is temporary in nature as courts have

the final say. Judicial power is a primary power exercised by the judiciary
while quasi-judicial power is incidental to the primary function of
administrative bodies of implementing and enforcing laws. (NOTA BENE: It is
called quasi-judicial because it is a power that belongs to the judiciary but
is exercised by a non-judicial body. In addition, it is only incidental to the
primary function of implementation and enforcement of laws.)
Q: Why is it important to distinguish between quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial power?
A: It is important to distinguish between these two powers of administrative
bodies because there are certain rules and principles in administrative law,
which apply to one but not to the other. Thus, the requirements of due
process (notice & hearing) apply when the administrative body is exercising
quasi-judicial functions because such power includes the determination of
rights and obligations. On the other hand, there is generally no need of prior
notice & hearing in the exercise of quasi-legislative power. Likewise the prior
exhaustion of remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction do not apply
in quasi-legislative processes, and only in the exercise of quasi-judicial
functions. And finally, a body exercising quasi-judicial functions is considered
equivalent to a regional trial court. Hence, one can seek relief from its
judgment by appealing to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court,
depending on the mode of appeal. A body exercising quasi-legislative
functions is not considered equivalent to a court. Hence, one can resort to
the regional trial court to obtain relief.
Q: How are administrative rules interpreted?
A: It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or
commission has a certain power, the authority given should be liberally
construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and that
which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative
intent should be upheld as being germane to the law. Necessarily, too, where
the end is required, the appropriate means are deemed given. (Matienzo v.
Abellera, G.R. No. L-45839, June 1, 1988)

People v. Exconde, 101 Phil 1125 (1957)

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, JUSTIFIED:

It is well established in this jurisdiction that, while the making of laws is a non-delegable
activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress, nevertheless the latter may
constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a
given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature often finds
it impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and
complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. All that is required is
that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the
regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conform to the standards that the law
prescribes.
MUST CONFORM TO STATUTES:
The regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be
in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect
its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended.
So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of
the law, they are valid. A violation of a regulation prescribed by an executive officer of
the Government in conformity with and based upon a statute authorizing such
regulation, constitutes an offense and renders the offender liable to punishment in
accordance with the provisions of law.
RULE ON PENAL SANCTIONS:
The legislature cannot delegate to a board or to an executive officer the power to
declare what acts shall constitute a criminal offense. It is competent for it, however, to
authorize a commission to prescribe duties on which the law may operate in imposing a
penalty and in effectuating the purpose designed in enacting the law. There are
numerous cases in which the courts have sustained statutes authorizing administrative
officers to promulgate rules on a specified subject and providing that a violation of such
rules or orders should constitute a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in the statute.
Where statutes provide that violation of a rule or regulation of an administrative agency
shall be a misdemeanor, if the rule or regulation is reasonable, the enforcement of the

penalty for its violation is sustained by the courts, for the legislature and not the
administrative agency made the action penal.

Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, Oct. 12, 1998
TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION:
Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Government the power to fill
in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to
forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, that said law: (a) be
complete in itself it must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or
implemented by the delegate and (b) fix a standard the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance
of his functions.
IS IT COMPLETE?
Considering the scope and the definiteness of RA 8177, which changed the mode of
carrying out the death penalty, the Court finds that the law sufficiently describes what
job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority.
DOES IT HAVE SUFFICIENT STANDARDS?
RA 8177 likewise provides the standards which define the legislative policy, mark its
limits, map out its boundaries, and specify the public agencies which will apply it. It
indicates the circumstances under which the legislative purpose may be carried out.

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Leonila P. Celada, G.R. No. 164876, Jan. 23,
2006
RULES AND REGULATIONS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW:
It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret
the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to

great respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in
their favor a presumption of legality. As such, courts cannot ignore administrative
issuances especially when, as in this case, its validity was not put in issue. Unless an
administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply the same.
Tests of Delegation
(1) COMPLETENESS TEST
- what is to be examined:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

subject matter (what is delegated)

scope of the subject matter or measure
what job must be done
authority (who is to do it)
scope of authority
(2) SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST
- what is to be examined:

1.
2.
3.

legislative policy (whereas clauses)

specific administrative agency to apply the legislative policy
scope of the policy and the circumstances under which it is to be
carried out
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533 (1988)
WHAT CAN BE DELEGATED:
Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated.
What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not
what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the
legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the
delegate.
TWO TESTS:
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of

legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the
first test, the law must be complete in all its terms 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. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or
stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the
delegation from running riot.
Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the
delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a
power essentially legislative.
POWER OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION:
With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a
statute by filling in the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or
competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as
supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of
Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.
ACCEPTED SUFFICIENT STANDARDS:
(1) public interest; (2) justice and equity; (3) public convenience and welfare; (4)
simplicity, economy and efficiency; (5) sense and experience of men; and (6) national
security.

Tatad vs. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997)
The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which
necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or
discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The
first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made.

Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)

Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions,

to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority.
However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b)
fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to
which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. A sufficient
standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances which the
legislative command is to be effected.

Doctrine of Potestas delegata non delegari potest; Exception

Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr., 239 SCRA 386 (1994)
An administrative body may implement broad policies laid down in a statute by filling in
the details which the Legislature may neither have time nor competence to provide.
However, nowhere under the aforesaid provisions of law are the regulatory bodies
authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, a transport operator or other
public service.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
The authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over
and above the authorized existing fare is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an
undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegate non delegari potest. What
has been delegated cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle
that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by
the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another. A further delegation of such power would indeed constitute
a negation of the duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate mandated to
discharge it directly. The policy of allowing the provincial bus operators to change and
increase their fares at will would result not only to a chaotic situation but to an anarchic
state of affairs. This would leave the riding public at the mercy of transport operators

who may increase fares every hour, every day, every month or every year, whenever it
pleases them or whenever they deem it necessary to do so.

American Tobacco Co. vs. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287 (1975)

CAN DIRECTOR OF PATENTS DELEGATE A FUNCTION?
It has been held that power conferred upon and administrative agency to which the
administration of a statute is entrusted to issue such regulations and orders as may be
deemed necessary or proper in order to carry out its purposes and provisions may be
an adequate source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless by express
provisions of the Act or by implication it has been withheld.
SUB-DELEGATION OF POWER:
A far wider range of delegations to subordinate officers. This sub-delegation of power
has been justified by sound principles of organization which demand that those at the
top be able to concentrate their attention upon the larger and more-important questions
of policy and practice, and their time be freed, so far as possible, from the consideration
of the smaller and far less important matters of detail. Thus, it is well-settled that while
the power to decide resides solely in the administrative agency vested by law, this does
not preclude a delegation of the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the
decision of the administrative agency will be made.
The rule that requires an administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and
discretion does not preclude him from utilizing as a matter of practical administrative
procedure, the aid of subordinates to investigate and report to him the facts, on the
basis of which the officer makes his decisions. It is sufficient that the judgment and
discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. There is no
abnegation of responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decision
remains with and is made by said officer. It is, however, required that to give the
substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon
evidence, the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the
evidence which justifies them.

Kinds of Administrative Regulations (Quasi-Legislative)

1.
2.

Legislative subordinate legislation; details of the law

Interpretative guidelines to the law to be enforced
Q: Why is it important to distinguish between legislative and
interpretative rules and regulations?
A: It is important to distinguish between the two because the requirements
of due process generally apply to one but not to the other. Thus,
interpretative rules and regulations do not require notice and hearing or
publication for their validity. However, legislative rules may require notice
and hearing (1) if the law itself provides that there is a need for observance
of due process (e.g. provisional fixing of rate); and (2) if the rule adds burden
to the governed. Publication is likewise a condition precedent to the
effectivity of legislative rules and regulations, EXCEPT if they are merely
internal regulations (e.g. letters of instruction).

Eslao vs. Commission on Audit, 236 SCRA 161 (1994)

COA, under its constitutional mandate, is not authorized to substitute its own judgment
for any applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which,
however, it does not agree, at least not before such law or regulation is set aside by the
authorized agency of government i.e., the courts as unconstitutional or illegal and
void. The COA, like all other government agencies, must respect the presumption of
legality and constitutionality to which statutes and administrative regulations are entitled
until such statute or regulation is repealed or amended, or until set aside in appropriate
case by a competent court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CA, 261 SCRA 236 (1996)

LEGISLATIVE v. INTERPRETATIVE RULE:
A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a

primary legislation by providing the details thereof. In the same way that laws must have
the benefit of public hearing, it is generally required that before a legislative rule is
adopted there must be hearing.
It should be understandable that when an administrative rule is merely interpretative in
nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, upon the
other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially
adds to or increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at
least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed,
before that new issuance is given the force and effect of law.

Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission, 211 SCRA 425 (1992)

INTERPRETATIVE RULE:
When an administrative or executive agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of
policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative interpretation of the
law is at best advisory, for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. It
has also been held that interpretative regulations need not be published.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION; EFFECT:
Administrative construction is not necessarily binding upon the courts. Action of an
administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there
is an error of law, or abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE RULE?
The general rule vis--vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers
no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. But it is quite clear,
however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of

unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute,

prior to such determination is an operative fact and may have consequences which
cannot always be ignored.

Melendres vs. COMELEC, 319 SCRA 262 (1999)

It needs to be stressed that the power of administrative agencies to promulgate rules in
the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the
legislative enactment. However, a long line of cases establish the basic rule that courts
will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government
agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical
knowledge and training of such agencies.
Generally, the interpretation of an administrative government agency, which is tasked to
implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of
the courts. However, courts will not hesitate to set aside such executive interpretation
when it is clearly erroneous, or when there is no ambiguity in the rule, or when the
language or words used are clear and plain or readily understandable to any ordinary
reader.

Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. International

Communication Corporation, G.R. No. 135992, Jan. 31, 2006
The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight than the
interpretation by that agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer. Thus, in cases
where the dispute concerns the interpretation by an agency of its own rules, one should
apply only these standards: Whether the delegation of power was valid; whether the
regulation was within that delegation; and if so, whether it was a reasonable regulation
under a due process test.

Requisites of Valid Administrative Regulations

o
o

Authorized by Congress - must have Constitutional or statutory basis

Within the scope of authority (must not be ultra vires) - must be in
harmony with the spirit and the letter of law
Q: Is there a valid administrative rule that conforms only to the
spirit of the law but not to its letter? If yes, how do you reconcile
this with the rule that administrative issuances should be construed
liberally?
A: No matter how wise a rule may be, if it is not in harmony with the law, it
is invalid. Thus, in People vs. Maceren, the rule was held invalid for the
reason that it made punishable an act which the law did not specify as
punishable even as the rule conformed to the legislative policy of protecting
marine life. This case is peculiar as it involved an administrative issuance
which contained a penal provision. As a rule, laws with penal provisions are
strictly construed for they subject a person to punishment and sanctions.
Anent the rule that administrative issuances should be construed liberally,
issuances with penal provisions can be said to be an exception by their very
nature. Moreover, while it is true that administrative issuances enjoy the
presumption of legality and accorded great respect, it is likewise true the
courts may declare them invalid based on grounds such as grave abuse of
discretion, lack of jurisdiction, error of law, abuse of power, and clear conflict
between the statute and the issuance.

Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. de la Serna, 228 SCRA 329

It is a fundamental rule that implementing rules cannot add to or detract from the
provisions of the law it is designed to implement. Administrative regulations adopted
under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law they are intended to carry into effect. They cannot widen its scope.
An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

Romulo, Mabana, Buenaventura, Sayoc & de los Angeles vs. Home

Development Mutual Fund, 333 SCRA 777

The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power, issue a regulation not
consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not
override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend
to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.
A department zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by the statute.

Observance of Prescribed Procedure: Notice and Hearing

Hon. Executive Secretary vs. Southwing Heavy Industries, G.R. No. 164171,
Feb. 20, 2006
In order to determine whether the rule has been issued or promulgated in accordance
with the prescribed procedure, it is necessary that the nature of the administrative
issuance is properly determined. As in the enactment of laws, the general rule is that,
the promulgation of administrative issuances requires previous notice and hearing, the
only exception being where the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the
regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation.
This exception pertains to the issuance of legislative rules as distinguished from
interpretative rules which give no real consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed; and are designed merely to provide guidelines to the law which the
administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. A legislative rule, on the other hand, is
in the nature of subordinate legislation, crafted to implement a primary legislation.
When an administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render less cumbersome the implementation of the law and substantially
increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to
those directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter, to be duly informed, before
the issuance is given the force and effect of law.

Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. Secretary of Education, Culture and

Sports, 153 SCRA 622 (1987)

The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative

or an adjudicative function. If it were a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and
hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regards rates
prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior
notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates.
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE v. QUASI-JUDICIAL:
When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply
to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country, they may partake of a
legislative character. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a
particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function is quasi-judicial in
character.

Fair and Reasonable

It is an axiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act
arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such
rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If
shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were authorized to
be issued, then they must be held to be invalid. (Hon. Executive Secretary vs.
Southwing Heavy Industries)

Publication

1.
2.

file with UP Law Center 3 certified copies of the rule

file or publish with the National Administrative Register
Penal Regulations; Requisites for Validity

1.
2.
3.

the law itself must make the violation punishable

the law itself must impose and specify the penalty
the regulation must be published

Q: What cannot be delegated to the administrative body as regards

penal regulations?
A: The Legislature cannot delegate to the administrative body (1) what acts
should constitute a criminal offense and (2) how they shall be punished.