ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES MIDTERM - EXAMINATIONOPLE VERSUS TORRES – ID SYSTEM ISSUE : WON AO 308 – ID SYSTEM IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them." The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines. As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. — Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. RATIO DECIDENDI : Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws. REPUBLIC VERSUS EXPRESS TELECOM – CERTIFICATE OF CONVINIENCE AND NESSESITY ISSUE : WON NTC EXCERCISED DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE IN PUBLICATION OF THE 1993 RULES OF PROCEDURE OBITER DICTA : This Court, in Tañada vs. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 446) stated, thus: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. RATIO DECIDENDI : Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or regulations can take effect. Sandiganbayan (166 SCRA 316 [1988]).IN NOTICE AND HEARING OBITER DICTA : In Zaldivar vs. there is no denial of procedural due process. . A party may also be heard through his pleadings. we held that the right to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. where opportunity to be heard is accorded either through oral arguments or pleadings. in order to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself. exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion. 2000. Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies when it went directly to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and prohibition from the Order of the NTC dated May 3. is subject to certain exceptions such as any of the following: (1) the issues raised are purely legal in nature. however. It is well-settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Clearly. (3) extreme urgency is obvious or (4) special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to certiorari. It also basic that petitioner must exhaust all other available remedies before resorting to certiorari. ISSUE : WON THE CA CAN INTERFERE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE NTC HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The general rule is that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. The established exception to the rule is where the issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority. The general rule is that. (2) public interest is involved. This rule. . without first filing a motion for reconsideration. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. 5. RATIO DECIDENDI : If the manifest intent of the 1987 Constitution is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. and shall not diminish. a power conceded to it and which it has exercised since time immemorial. increase.ECHEGARAY VERSUS JUSTICE SECRETARY – SUPREME COURT .FINAL AND EXECUTORY ISSUE : WON THE SC STILL HAS JURISDICTION AFTER A DECISION BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY HELD : THE COURT RULED IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Sec. as public respondents do. ISSUE : WON THE SC CAN GRANT REPRIEVES HELD : THE COURT RULED IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The suspension of such a death sentence is undisputably an exercise of judicial power. For the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after his final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our government. . or modify substantive rights. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. it is inutile to urge. practice and procedure in all courts. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. the Integrated Bar. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. the admission to the practice of law. that this Court has no jurisdiction to control the process of execution of its decisions. pleading. It is not a usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its effects are the same — the temporary suspension of the execution of the death convict. TAXI CAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA VERSUS BOT – SIX YEARS PHASE OUT OF TAXI ISSUE : WON BOT EXERCISED DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RATIO DECIDENDI : It is not mandatory that it should first call a conference or require the submission of position papers or other documents from operators or persons who may be affected. Operators of public conveyances are not the only primary sources of the data and information that may be desired by the BOT. Neither can they state with certainty that public respondents had not availed of other sources of inquiry prior to issuing the challenged Circulars. therefore. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness. . the requirement of due process has been met. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. and justly. The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. and a fair return on investment obtained. ON THE CEILING OF SIX YEARS BEING ARBITRARY RATIO DECIDENDI : A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to vehicles affected uniformly. that they were deprived of procedural due process. fairly. this being only one of the options open to the Board. which is given wide discretionary authority. their cost recovered. Petitioners cannot justifiably claim. suspend or revoke. revise. alter. upon petition or complaint of another or even at its own initiative. the Civil Aeronautics Board is not only empowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity. under the law. is supposed to be conditioned upon the paramount consideration of public convenience and necessity. it can also issue. deny. cancel. and nothing has been presented in this case to prove that the disputed action by the Board has been prompted by a cause other than the good of the service.AIR MANILA VERSUS BALATBAT – AIR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVINENCE & NECESSITY ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE BOARD HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : For. of course. in whole or in part. The exercise of the power. . modify. any temporary operating permit. 4-71 is beyond question.ABS-CBN VERSUS CTA – RETROACTIVITY OF TAX CIRCULARS ISSUE : WON ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS CAN BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENTI : It is clear from the foregoing that rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application where to so apply them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. . It provides that "the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction. The prejudice to petitioner of the retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. ISSUE : WON GC V334 IS A NULLITY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment clearly obtains in this case. .ARTEZUELA VERSUS MADERAZO – IBP LAWYER ISSUE : WON THE IBP EXERCISED SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : In administrative cases. the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings. In the case at bar. prompting the Investigating Commissioner to receive complainant’s evidence ex parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have submitted their respective memorandum. records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the hearings. as “actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies.” Due process is fulfilled when the parties were given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments. Under the sufficient standard test.EASTERN SHIPPING LINES VERSUS POEA – DEATH OF HUSBAND ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Ordinarily. viz. there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. as the questions the petitioner is raising are essentially questions of law. Under the first test. 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. however. . This is called the "power of subordinate legislation. ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE OBITER DICTA : There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power. the decisions of the POEA should first be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. These regulations have the force and effect of law. such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. This case comes under one of the exceptions. on the theory inter alia that the agency should be given an opportunity to correct the errors. of its subordinates." With this power. if any. 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. the Securities and Exchange Commission on its own rules. .ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FOR POEA PROMULGATED THE RULES AND ALSO ISSUED THE RULINGS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers. and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. Court of Industrial Relations are observed. Such an arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be considered violative of due process as long as the cardinal rights laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the Videogram Regulatory Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Department of Natural Resources and so on ad infinitumon their respective administrative regulations. the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial. the Central Bank on its own circulars. Examples abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates on its own revenue regulations. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations. 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. ISSUE : WON NOTICE AND HEARING IS NEEDED IN RATE FIXING HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : The present administrative procedure. an interested party at that. . To do away with such a procedure and allow just one party. Discarding such procedural and constitutional right is certainly inimical to our fundamental law and to public interest. already mirrors an orderly and satisfactory arrangement for all parties involved. The purpose of a hearing is precisely to determine what a just and reasonable rate is. to determine what the rate should be. will undermine the right of the other parties to due process. the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare. What has been delegated cannot be delegated. is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. to our mind.KMU LABOR CENTER VERSUS GARCIA – LOCAL BUS OPERATORS WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO SET PRICES ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : In the case at bench. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. . we hold that. final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions. Thus. the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction. the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is “patently illegal” and was issued with “grave abuse of discretion” and “beyond his jurisdiction”when said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29. including the Office of the President. not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. in this particular case. whether the appeal involves questions of fact. final order or resolution. 1996 which had long become final and executory. of law. the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.FORTITCH VERSUS CORONA – WIN WIN RESOLUTION – FINAL & EXECUTORY ISSUE : WON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY FOR ERROR OF JURISDICTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : It is true that under Rule 43. as what the petitioners have correctly done. judgments. or mixed questions of fact and law. However. may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment. In other words. appeals from awards. . The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.ISSUE : WON THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CAN CHANGE A DECISION WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law. was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. rules and regulations.1996 Decision which had already become final and executory. without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.This is a fundamental principle in our justice system. Thus. the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. shall hereinafter be referred to as the Disciplining Authority.O." The power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities. 23. Control is said to be the very heart of the power of the presidency. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is hereby designated as the Investigating Authority. and offices. the President. may delegate some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he is required by the Constitution to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts personally." "Sec." Investigating Authority. The members of Cabinet may act for and in behalf of the President in certain matters because the President cannot be expected to exercise his control (and supervisory) powers personally all the time. duly verified. No. in the interest of the service. The President shall have control of all the executive departments. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. bureaus. "Sec.JOSON VERSUS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY – REMOVAL IN ELECTIVE POSITION ISSUE : WON DILG . to wit: Disciplining Authority. the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority. against elective local officials mentioned in the preceding Section shall be acted upon by the President. 17. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. As head of the Executive Department. . however. All administrative complaints.OP HAS JURISDICTION OVER DISCIPLINE CASES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTUM : Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is lodged in two authorities: the Disciplining Authority and the Investigating Authority. who may act through the Executive Secretary. The President. This is explicit from A. however. and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. Each head of a department is. and must be. The Disciplining Authority may." If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties. constitute a Special Investigating Committee in lieu of the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government. He may constitute an Investigating Committee in the Department of the Interior and Local Government for the purpose. 4. The procedure of requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected An elective official. Suspension and removal are thus imposed only after the elective official is accorded his rights and the evidence against him strongly dictates their imposition.The rules on the removal and suspension of elective local officials is more stringent. The official has a definite term of office fixed by law which is relatively of short duration. elected by popular vote. .ISSUE : WON HEARING CAN BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ELECTIVE OFFICIALS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The provisions for administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials are markedly different from appointive officials. is directly responsible to the community that elected him. When an elective official is suspended or removed. the people are deprived of the services of the man they had elected. Suspension and removal from office definitely affects and shortens this term of office. Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the elective official of their choice. The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence. and (3) the information is reasonably relevant. it may be stated that a subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the authority of the agency. (2) the demand is not too indefinite. but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. In sum. . whether or not adjudication is involved.EVANGELISTA VERSUS JARENCIO – PARGO – SUBPOENA TO INVESTIGATE ISSUE :WON ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES HAS THE POWER OF SUBPOENA HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Rightly. administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations. and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body. it. . not only to give the administrative agency opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly. as in this case. of administrative remedies requires where an administrative remedy is provided by statute. relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. The doctrine is a device based on considerations of comity and convenience.MONTES VERSUS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS – WATCHMAN IN PORTS – DREDGE SUNK ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The doctrine of exhaustion. this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts. If a remedy is still available within the administrative machinery. upon the terms and conditions stated in the Act. and which holds that portions of the Act unconstitutional. . which is the right of the Governor-General. to fix the price of rice and make it a crime to sell it at a higher price.US VERSUS ANG TANG HO – RICE – RATE FIXIG AND ECAME A CRIME ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Completeness Test & Self Sufficeincy Test RATIO DECIDENDI : ACTS OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IS NOT IN RELATION WITH THE ENABLING LAW This opinion is confined to the particular question here involved. such thirty-day period is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. This is in line with the rule in statutory construction that an administrative rule or regulation.SMGC VERSUS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT – HOUSE – REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF SPECIAL LAW ISSUE : WON THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF 30 DAYS MUST BE FOLLOWED HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE As pointed out by public respondent. . the same shall prevail over the thirty-day period provided for in the administrative order. Nonetheless. must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law. the aforecited administrative order allows aggrieved party to file its appeal with the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision complained of. in order to be valid. If there are special laws governing particular cases which provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period. 7742 that employers should have both provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for exemption from the Fund. No.A. which are the product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law. in the exercise of its rule~making power.A. the standards prescribed by law.ROMULO VERSUS HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND – WAIVER OF FUND COVERAGE BECAUSE OF SUPERIOR RETIREMENT PLAN ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DELEGATED RULE MAKING POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule~making power as provided in Section 5 of R. administrative issuances must not override.D. 1752. 1752. Rule VII of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R. However. . And when the Board subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments. should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. The HDMF cannot. 7742 and Section 13 of P. but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. supplant or modify the law. No. but in conformity with. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. 1752.D.D. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law. No. No. No. it effectively amended Section 19 of P. it is well~settled that rules and regulations. Indeed. it repealed Section 19 of P. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid. and be not in contradiction to. as they are not within the delegated power of the Board. when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1. In the present case. Such investigation is not a part of the trial.LEDESMA VERSUS CA – DEFAMATORY LETTER – PROSECUTOR ISSUE : WON THE PROSECUTOR HAS THE POWER OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is judicially recognized as an executive function and is made by the prosecutor. such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of unnecessary expense and effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false. The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free a respondent from the inconvenience. frivolous or groundless charges. ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial. Secondarily. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence is not required. until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent officer designated by law for that purpose. expense. but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations. a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence. no double jeopardy attaches. . according to whether the evidence in his opinion. according to the evidence received from the complainant. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. are shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who.” In the same case. Mogul. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law. is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. those of the prosecutor should normally prevail: . follow or not follow that presented by the offended party. They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. the Court added that where there is a clash of views between a judge who did not investigate and a fiscal who conducted a reinvestigation. It cannot be controlled by the complainant. the Court emphasized the cardinal principle that the public prosecutor controls and directs the prosecution of criminal offenses thus: “It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal.OBITER DICTUM : In Crespo vs. He may or may not file the complaint or information. If the appellant (is) arraigned during the pendency of the appeal. exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors. Non-Appealable Cases. . Control. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. x x x appeal shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice.--No appeal may be taken from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. and who may thus affirm. the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform such duties. under the Revised Administrative Code.ISSUE : WON RESPONDENT CAN APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the secretary of justice who. nullify. reverse or modify their rulings. 4. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them. “Supervision” and “control” of a department head over his subordinates have been defined in administrative law as follows: “In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. no appeal shall be entertained where the appellant had already been arraigned. Exceptions. on the other hand.” OBITER DICTUM : SEC. INC VERSUS CA – X RATING OF TV SHOW ISSUE : WON THE MTRCB HAS JURISDICTION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The law gives the Board the power to screen.” In Victoriano vs. the Board has the power to “approve. review and examine all “television programs. injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines and its people.” By the clear terms of the law.” Clear & Present Danger Rule Any restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints on freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger. delete x x x and/or prohibit the x x x exhibition and/or television broadcast of x x x television programs x x x. indecent.” The law also directs the Board to apply “contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard” to determine those which are objectionable for being “immoral. contrary to law and/or good customs.” .Elizalde Rope Workers Union. we further ruled that “x x x it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified. or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime. Culture and Sports to this Court or any other Court. It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice should not generally interfere with purely administrative and discretionary functions. no law authorizing an appeal from decisions or orders of the Secretary of Education. only authority reposed in the Courts in the matter is the determination of whether or not the Secretary of Education. prohibition. or excluded another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled — it becomes the Court's duty to rectify such action through the extraordinary remedies of certiorari. or mandamus. or had unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty. Of course. if not finality. There is. On this question. It is not the function of this Court or any other Court to review the decisions and orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational institution meets the norms and standards required for permission to operate and to continue operating as such. oppressively. that the Secretary had acted with grave abuse of discretion. to appear to the Court that those powers were in a case exercised so whimsically. Culture and Sports that the College is unfit to continue its operations is in this case clearly unavailing. the latter are in a better position to pass judgment on such matters andn their findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded respect. to begin with. it is obviously not expected that any Court would have the competence to do so.BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VERSUS ALFONSO SCHOOL IS INADEQUATE ISSUE : WON THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Resort to the Courts to obtain a reversal of the determination by the Secretary of Education. Indeed. any decision rendered by him should not and will not be subject to review and reversal by any court. by the courts. As long as it appears that he has done so. no Court has the power or prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of the Secretary. because by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. capriciously. despotically or arbitrarily as to call for peremptory correction — or stated otherwise. . Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of powers granted him by law and the Constitution. whichever may properly apply. involving the exercise of judgment and findings of facts. The. that courts have no supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government. if it should be made. ” It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. fraud or collusion. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. grave abuse of discretion. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction. arbitrary or capricious. “The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority to be illegal (1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of the law or (2) because it is corrupt. error of law. .SMC VERSUS SECRETARY OF LABOR ISSUE : WON THE SC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : That contention is a flagrant error. “It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute.