Administrative law is the body of law that governs the organization, powers, procedures, and accountability of administrative agencies—and the legal effects of their actions on the public. It sits at the intersection of constitutional structure (separation of powers, due process), statutory design (delegation, standards, remedies), and practical governance (regulation, licensing, enforcement).

In Philippine practice, administrative law answers questions like:

Who may validly issue binding rules that affect private rights?
What makes an agency decision void for lack of due process or jurisdiction?
When must courts defer to agencies, and when must they strike down agency acts?

I. The Constitutional and Statutory Setting

A. Constitutional foundations

Administrative law is anchored in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, especially:

Separation of powers and checks and balances (which frame delegation, oversight, and judicial review).
Due process and equal protection (standards for fairness and rationality).
Accountability mechanisms (e.g., constitutional bodies and impeachment/removal structures).
Judicial power (including the duty of courts to determine grave abuse of discretion).

B. Statutory foundations

Key statutory frameworks commonly consulted include:

The Administrative Code of 1987 (baseline structure of executive departments, administrative relationships, and many general governance norms).
Enabling laws creating specific agencies (which define jurisdiction, powers, procedure, and review routes).
Special regulatory statutes (competition, utilities, labor, environment, finance, local government) that embed rulemaking and adjudication systems.

C. The role of courts and political branches

The Supreme Court of the Philippines supplies controlling doctrine on delegation, due process in administrative cases, exhaustion, primary jurisdiction, and standards of review.
The Congress of the Philippines defines agencies’ powers and limits through enabling statutes, appropriations, and oversight tools.
The President’s control/supervision powers shape how agencies act, especially within the executive branch.

II. What Counts as an “Administrative Agency”?

An administrative agency is a governmental unit (or instrumentality) created by the Constitution or by statute to implement laws, often through a mix of:

Quasi-legislative power (rulemaking),
Quasi-judicial power (adjudication), and/or
Executive/enforcement power (investigation, inspection, prosecution support, sanctions implementation).

Examples of agency types (illustrative, not exhaustive)

Constitutional commissions such as the Civil Service Commission and Commission on Audit.
Specialized regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, and National Telecommunications Commission.
Economic/utility regulators such as the Energy Regulatory Commission.
Bodies with strong adjudicatory roles such as the Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines).

III. Core Classifications in Administrative Law

Administrative law becomes easier once you classify (a) agencies, (b) their powers, (c) their acts, and (d) their procedures.

A. Classification of agencies by source of authority

Constitutional agencies Created directly by the Constitution; they often enjoy a degree of independence and are governed by constitutional design (tenure, removal, fiscal autonomy features, etc.).
Statutory agencies Created by legislation; their powers are only those granted (expressly or impliedly) by their enabling law.
Executive-created bodies Created by executive issuance (e.g., reorganizations, ad hoc committees) within the bounds of law; their legitimacy depends on statutory authorization and constitutional limits.

B. Classification by relationship to the President

Agencies under the President’s control The President may alter, modify, or reverse their actions (subject to law).
Agencies under supervision The President ensures they follow law but may not substitute judgment in matters committed to the agency.
Independent/constitutionally insulated bodies Certain agencies are structured to be less vulnerable to political control, though still accountable under law.

C. Classification by function

Regulatory agencies (set rules, issue permits, impose sanctions)
Service/administrative agencies (deliver programs, benefits, public services)
Adjudicatory agencies/tribunals (decide cases, determine rights/liabilities)
Investigatory/enforcement bodies (fact-finding, inspections, prosecution support)

D. Classification by jurisdiction and scope

General jurisdiction vs. special/limited jurisdiction
Nationwide vs. local/sectoral jurisdiction
Original vs. appellate administrative jurisdiction (some agencies review subordinate offices; others are first-instance)

E. Classification by decision-making structure

Single-head agencies (department secretary, administrator)
Collegial commissions/boards (multi-member; often quasi-judicial and regulatory)

IV. The Three “Faces” of Administrative Power

A. Quasi-legislative power (Rulemaking)

Rulemaking is the agency’s power to issue regulations that implement and fill in the details of statutes.

Key distinctions:

Legislative (substantive) rules
- Have the force of law.
- Usually require notice-and-comment or other prescribed procedures, plus publication/filing requirements where applicable.
Interpretative rules
- Explain the agency’s reading of a statute or rule.
- Typically persuasive, not independently binding in the same way as legislative rules (though they may be influential).
Internal/housekeeping rules
- Govern internal agency operations; generally do not bind the public unless adopted as required and meant to have external effect.

Common rulemaking tools:

Licensing standards, tariff/rate rules, technical standards, reporting requirements, compliance protocols, penalty schedules (when authorized).

Limits on rulemaking:

No rule may amend or contradict the statute.
Rules must stay within delegated authority and satisfy constitutional constraints (due process, equal protection, non-impairment, etc., depending on context).

B. Quasi-judicial power (Adjudication)

Adjudication is the agency’s power to decide cases affecting rights, duties, or privileges—often through hearings, evaluation of evidence, and issuance of orders/decisions.

Typical administrative cases:

License suspensions/revocations
Rate disputes and consumer complaints
Labor and employment determinations (where the relevant body has authority)
Securities/market violations
Civil service disciplinary matters
Environmental compliance orders and penalties (when authorized)

Quasi-judicial hallmarks:

A case with parties, issues, evidence, and a disposition.
Application of law and rules to facts found.
Issuance of orders, decisions, and resolutions.

C. Executive/enforcement power

This covers:

Inspections, investigations, subpoenas (when authorized)
Compliance orders and enforcement actions
Prosecution referrals
Implementation of sanctions (fines, closures, cease-and-desist orders, etc., as authorized)

V. Delegation of Powers: The Non-Delegation Principle and Its Workarounds

A. The general rule

Legislative power belongs to Congress. Delegation to agencies is allowed because modern governance requires specialization, but it must be bounded.

B. Requirements for a valid delegation

Completeness test The law must be complete enough that the agency is executing policy, not creating it from scratch.
Sufficient standard test The law must provide an intelligible standard to guide the agency and limit discretion.

C. Permissible “gaps” agencies may fill

Agencies commonly fill:

Technical details
Fact-dependent thresholds
Implementation mechanics
Procedures consistent with statute

D. Sub-delegation

As a rule, a delegated power may not be re-delegated unless:

The law allows it, or
The delegated matter is administrative/ministerial in nature, or
The structure necessarily implies it (e.g., internal delegation within an agency for efficiency), consistent with due process and accountability.

VI. Administrative Acts: How to Classify What Agencies Do

A useful way to organize agency outputs:

A. By legal effect

Rule/Regulation (generally applicable; prospective)
Order/Decision (case-specific; may be prospective and/or retrospective)
Advisory/Opinion (persuasive; often non-binding unless adopted as policy)

B. By nature of discretion

Ministerial acts
- Duty is clear; little or no discretion.
- Mandamus-type remedies become more plausible when unlawfully refused.
Discretionary acts
- Agency weighs policy, expertise, and facts.
- Courts are more restrained, intervening mainly for illegality, grave abuse, or denial of due process.

C. By timing

Prospective (rules, forward-looking orders)
Retroactive (generally disfavored for substantive burdens unless clearly authorized and consistent with fairness; the validity depends on context)

VII. Administrative Procedure and Due Process

Administrative procedure is about fairness plus functionality: agencies must be efficient, but not arbitrary.

A. Procedural due process in administrative settings

Administrative due process is often more flexible than judicial due process, but it remains real and enforceable.

Common baseline elements (often taught through jurisprudential formulations):

Right to notice
Right to explain one’s side (written submissions and/or hearing, depending on the case)
Consideration of evidence
Decision based on substantial evidence (for fact-finding)
Decision by an impartial decision-maker
A decision that states reasons (at least enough to show rational basis and permit review)

B. Hearing requirements: when is an actual trial-type hearing necessary?

Not all administrative actions require a full-blown hearing. Factors that commonly matter:

Whether the agency action is adjudicatory (targeted determination of rights)
The severity of deprivation (livelihood, property, liberty interests)
Statutory hearing mandates
Whether issues are factual and credibility-based versus purely legal/policy

C. Substantial evidence rule

For many agencies, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is less than “preponderance” and far less than “beyond reasonable doubt,” but it is more than a mere scintilla.

D. Ex parte communications and bias

Where an agency is acting quasi-judicially, fairness norms tighten:

Parties should not be ambushed by secret evidence.
Decision-makers must avoid disqualifying bias.

VIII. Judicial Review of Administrative Action

A. Why courts usually do not decide first

Philippine administrative law uses doctrines that keep courts from prematurely stepping in:

Exhaustion of administrative remedies Courts generally require parties to use available agency appeal/review mechanisms before filing in court.
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction Courts may defer to agencies on issues requiring technical expertise, even when the court has jurisdiction, so the agency can decide first.

These doctrines have recognized exceptions (commonly invoked in practice), such as:

Pure questions of law
Patent lack of jurisdiction
Grave abuse of discretion
Irreparable injury
Futility of administrative remedies
Violation of due process
Issues of transcendental importance (context-dependent and cautiously applied)

B. Standards of review (what courts look for)

When reviewing administrative action, courts often ask:

Jurisdiction: Did the agency act within its legal authority?
Procedure: Were required procedures and due process observed?
Evidence: Are factual findings supported by substantial evidence?
Reasonableness: Is the action arbitrary, capricious, or issued with grave abuse?
Consistency with law: Did the agency violate the Constitution or statute?

C. Deference and expertise

Courts often respect agencies’ technical determinations, but deference is not blind:

Agencies cannot “expertise” their way out of clear statutory limits.
Constitutional rights and jurisdictional boundaries remain judicial territory.

IX. Powers Frequently Encountered in Practice

A. Licensing power

Agencies regulate entry into professions/industries through permits and licenses:

Grant (subject to qualifications)
Renewal
Suspension/revocation (often requires heightened procedural safeguards)

B. Rate-fixing and tariff-setting

Public utility and similar regulators may set rates when authorized. Rate-setting is typically treated as quasi-legislative (policy/technical), but individual disputes can become quasi-judicial.

C. Contempt and subpoena powers

Some agencies have subpoena authority by statute. Contempt powers in administrative settings are typically statutory and bounded; practice varies by agency.

D. Police power and administrative regulation

Many regulations rest on the state’s police power—public health, safety, morals, and general welfare—implemented through agencies. The key legal question is usually whether the measure is authorized, reasonable, and not unduly oppressive.

X. Key Concepts on Validity of Administrative Issuances

When assessing whether an administrative issuance is valid, lawyers commonly check:

Authority
- Is there a clear enabling basis for the issuance?
Consistency
- Does it conform to the Constitution and statute?
Proper procedure
- Were publication/filing and required consultations/hearings done (when required)?
Reasonableness
- Is it arbitrary or discriminatory without justification?
Clarity and standards
- Is it void for vagueness (especially if it penalizes)?
Prospectivity and fairness
- Does it unfairly impose retroactive burdens?

XI. Public Officers, Administrative Discipline, and Accountability

Administrative law also governs public administration internally.

A. Nature of public office

Public office is a public trust. Standards of conduct, qualification requirements, incompatibilities, and disciplinary regimes often sit within administrative frameworks.

B. Administrative discipline

Many agencies maintain disciplinary authority over personnel within their jurisdiction, subject to:

Due process requirements
Evidentiary standards
Defined offenses and penalties
Review/appeal routes within the administrative system

C. Audits, ethics, and anti-graft architecture

The accountability ecosystem includes audit and integrity institutions such as the Commission on Audit and Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines), alongside internal controls and statutory ethics frameworks.

XII. Local Governments and Administrative Law

Local government units exercise administrative and regulatory powers (business permits, zoning, local taxation, local police measures) subject to:

Delegation in the Local Government Code and related statutes
Review mechanisms (administrative and judicial)
Constitutional limits (due process, equal protection, non-impairment, and statutory preemption)

Administrative law issues often arise in:

Permit denials/closures
Local regulatory ordinances
Franchise and market regulation coordination with national agencies

XIII. Practical “Issue Spotting” Checklist

When faced with an administrative law problem, a strong baseline checklist is:

Identify the actor: Which agency/officer acted?
Classify the power used: rulemaking, adjudication, enforcement, or mixed?
Locate the legal basis: Constitution? statute? valid delegation?
Determine the act’s nature: rule/order/advisory; ministerial/discretionary.
Check procedure: notice, hearing (if required), publication/filing (if required), quorum/vote rules (if collegial), record support.
Check evidentiary standard: substantial evidence? other statutory standard?
Check remedies and timing: exhaustion, appeal periods, primary jurisdiction.
Choose the review vehicle: correct court, correct mode, correct issues (law vs fact).
Frame the standard of review: jurisdictional error, grave abuse, due process, arbitrariness, statutory inconsistency.

XIV. The “Big Picture” Concepts to Master Early

If you want a compact map of what most Administrative Law exams and bar-style hypotheticals repeatedly test, it’s these:

Delegation: completeness + sufficient standard; limits on sub-delegation.
Powers: quasi-legislative vs quasi-judicial vs enforcement—different procedures and review.
Due process: flexible but mandatory; substantial evidence; impartiality and notice.
Judicial review gatekeeping: exhaustion and primary jurisdiction, plus exceptions.
Validity of issuances: authority, consistency, procedure, reasonableness.
Deference: respect for expertise, but no tolerance for illegality or grave abuse.

XV. Common Doctrinal Tensions in Philippine Administrative Law

Administrative law is often the art of balancing:

Expertise vs. accountability (specialization without unchecked power)
Efficiency vs. fairness (fast governance without arbitrariness)
Uniform national policy vs. local autonomy (coordination and preemption issues)
Political control vs. independence (control/supervision boundaries; constitutional insulation)

Understanding these tensions helps predict outcomes when doctrine alone feels abstract: courts and lawmakers routinely calibrate rules to manage these tradeoffs.

XVI. Glossary of High-Frequency Terms

Administrative agency: governmental unit empowered to implement law through rules, adjudication, and enforcement.
Quasi-legislative: agency power to issue generally applicable rules.
Quasi-judicial: agency power to decide individual cases affecting rights.
Substantial evidence: relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.
Exhaustion: rule requiring use of administrative remedies before going to court.
Primary jurisdiction: judicial deference to agency expertise on technical issues.
Grave abuse of discretion: capricious, whimsical, arbitrary exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ministerial vs discretionary: compelled duty versus judgment-laden decision.
Rule vs order: general prospective norm versus case-specific directive.

This is the conceptual backbone of Administrative Law in the Philippine setting: what agencies are, how they are classified, what powers they exercise, what procedures restrain them, and how courts review them.