I. Overview: Why the Comparison Matters

In the Philippine constitutional order, Congress holds the primary legislative power—the authority to make laws that bind the public. Administrative bodies (departments, bureaus, commissions, and regulatory agencies) may also issue rules that look like “mini-laws,” but their authority is derivative: it exists only because the Constitution or a statute allows it, and only within the limits set by that superior source.

This comparison turns on a basic hierarchy: Constitution → Statutes (Congress) → Administrative rules and regulations → Local ordinances (within delegated authority) → Internal issuances

Administrative rules are often indispensable in modern governance (tax, customs, telecom, energy, labor, health, environment), but they remain constrained by (1) the non-delegation doctrine, (2) procedural requirements (publication/filing and, in appropriate cases, notice-and-comment or hearings), and (3) judicial review anchored on the Constitution’s expanded power to strike down acts tainted by grave abuse of discretion.

II. Congress: The Baseline Rule-Maker

A. Constitutional source and breadth

Congress exercises legislative power under the Constitution. It can:

Create rights and obligations;
Impose taxes (subject to constitutional limits);
Define crimes and penalties;
Create and structure agencies;
Appropriate funds;
Establish national policy across virtually all fields not constitutionally reserved elsewhere.

Congressional enactments (statutes) are primary legislation. They can change the legal landscape directly, without needing an “enabling law,” because they are the enabling law.

B. Limits on Congress

Congress is still limited by:

The Bill of Rights and other constitutional constraints;
Separation of powers (e.g., it cannot exercise judicial power);
Requirements of bicameralism and presentment (bill passage, presidential veto, etc.);
Substantive constitutional doctrines (due process, equal protection, non-impairment, non-delegation boundaries when it delegates to others).

III. Administrative Bodies: The Nature of Quasi-Legislative (Rule-Making) Power

A. What “quasi-legislative power” is

Administrative agencies exercise quasi-legislative power when they issue:

Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR);
Regulatory rules (licensing standards, rate-setting frameworks, technical codes);
Circulars, orders, memoranda that impose general obligations on classes of persons.

These are subordinate legislation: rules meant to implement and carry out a statute (or, in some cases, a constitutional grant).

B. Sources of administrative rule-making authority

Administrative bodies may validly issue rules only if authority is traceable to one of these:

Statutory delegation (most common): the enabling law authorizes an agency to promulgate rules “to implement” or “to carry out” the law.
Constitutional delegation (limited and specific): e.g., certain independent constitutional commissions have rule-making power relevant to their constitutional mandates; the President has constitutionally recognized powers in specific areas (and broad executive power), but rule-making that binds the public still typically needs statutory basis.
Inherent/incidental power: agencies may issue internal rules to run their offices, but internal housekeeping cannot be used to impose new burdens on the public without legal basis.

IV. The Non-Delegation Doctrine and Its Philippine Tests

A. Core principle

Legislative power is vested in Congress, so Congress generally cannot delegate that power. But practical governance requires delegation of details to expert agencies.

B. The two classic Philippine tests

Philippine jurisprudence frames permissible delegation through two interlocking tests:

Completeness Test The law must be complete when it leaves Congress—meaning it sets out the policy and the essential terms such that what remains is execution/implementation.
Sufficient Standard Test The law must provide an intelligible standard to guide the delegate and to restrain discretion—so rule-making doesn’t become law-making at large.

If these are satisfied, what is delegated is not “legislative power” in the strict sense, but authority to fill in the details, ascertain facts, or operationalize policy.

C. Recognized forms of permissible delegation

Philippine doctrine commonly recognizes these delegations as valid when properly bounded:

Delegation to administrative agencies (IRR and regulatory power);
Delegation to the President in specific constitutionally recognized areas (notably tariff-related powers, under conditions set by law);
Delegation to local governments (local legislative power for ordinances within the Local Government Code and the Constitution);
Delegation contingent on facts (contingent legislation), where the law’s operation depends on determinations of fact by an agency.

V. The Key Differences: Congress vs Administrative Rule-Makers

A. Source of authority

Congress: direct constitutional grant of legislative power.
Administrative bodies: only what the Constitution/statute delegates; no inherent power to legislate for the public.

B. Scope and subject matter

Congress: can legislate broadly; can create crimes, impose taxes, define policy, allocate public funds (within constitutional bounds).
Administrative bodies: generally limited to implementation, technical regulation, and policy execution within the enabling law’s field.

C. Ability to create crimes, penalties, taxes

Crimes/penalties: As a rule, only Congress defines crimes and penalties. Agencies may impose administrative penalties (fines, suspension, revocation) if authorized by law and bounded by standards; they cannot create criminal offenses out of whole cloth.
Taxes: Taxation is principally legislative. Agencies like the BIR issue regulations to implement tax statutes, but cannot impose a tax not found in law.

D. Democratic legitimacy and process

Congress: political accountability through elections; formal bicameral process; deliberation; transparency mechanisms.
Agencies: technocratic accountability; executive control/supervision (for executive agencies); constrained discretion; validity often hinges on compliance with procedural requirements (publication/filing; due process when required).

E. Durability and hierarchy

Statutes outrank regulations. A regulation inconsistent with a statute is void. Conversely, when a statute is amended or repealed, inconsistent regulations must yield.

VI. Types of Administrative Issuances and Their Legal Effect

A. Legislative rules (subordinate legislation)

These are rules that:

Implement a statute;
Apply generally to the public or a class;
Create binding obligations or conditions not merely internal.

Effect: They can have the force of law only if within delegated authority and promulgated with required procedure (especially publication).

B. Interpretative rules

These explain how an agency understands a statute. Courts may respect them, especially if:

The statute is ambiguous; and
The interpretation is longstanding and consistent (doctrine of contemporaneous construction).

Effect: Less “law-creating”; more persuasive than controlling—especially if it adds burdens beyond the statute.

C. Internal/administrative guidelines

Memoranda about internal workflow, staffing, reporting, and internal discipline.

Effect: Bind the agency internally; generally should not bind the public unless backed by lawful authority and proper promulgation.

VII. Procedural Requirements for Valid Regulations (Philippine Framework)

A. Publication requirement (due process dimension)

Rules of general application that affect the public typically require publication before they become effective. This flows from due process and the principle that the public must be informed of binding norms.

A major Philippine doctrine holds that laws and regulations with general applicability must be published (commonly in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation), with limited exceptions (e.g., purely internal rules).

B. Filing/registration (Administrative Code framework)

Under the Administrative Code of 1987’s administrative procedure provisions, rules are typically required to be:

Filed with the appropriate registry (notably the Office of the National Administrative Register system associated with the UP Law Center framework), and
Effective after publication and/or after a stated period (often 15 days after publication, unless otherwise provided).

C. Notice-and-comment / hearings

Philippine administrative law does not uniformly impose U.S.-style notice-and-comment for every rule, but hearings/consultations may be required by:

The enabling statute itself;
Due process considerations in rate-setting or when rules substantially affect property/rights and the statute contemplates participation;
Special regulatory frameworks (e.g., certain economic regulation contexts).

Where the law requires hearing/consultation and the agency skips it, the regulation risks invalidation.

VIII. Substantive Limits on Administrative Rule-Making

A. Ultra vires: exceeding delegated authority

A regulation is invalid if it:

Goes beyond what the enabling statute authorizes;
Regulates a subject the law did not delegate to the agency;
Imposes requirements inconsistent with the statute’s text or purpose.

B. No amendment or expansion of the statute

Agencies cannot “legislate by regulation.” A classic Philippine formulation is that IRR may supplement but not supplant the law—i.e., it may fill in details but cannot expand the statute’s scope or create obligations the law did not contemplate.

C. Reasonableness and non-arbitrariness

Even within authority, rules must be reasonable and aligned with statutory purpose. Arbitrary classifications can be struck down for violating due process/equal protection principles.

D. Consistency with the Constitution and superior laws

Administrative rules must comply with:

The Constitution (including rights protections);
Statutes;
Treaties (where applicable and controlling);
Jurisprudential standards (e.g., non-impairment, free speech constraints in regulated speech contexts, privacy, labor protections).

IX. Relationship to Executive Power: Control, Supervision, and Independent Agencies

A. Executive departments and the President’s control

Most agencies in the executive branch are subject to the President’s control (not merely supervision), meaning the President can alter, modify, or set aside acts of subordinates—subject to law.

But: Presidential control does not authorize an agency (or the President) to issue binding rules without statutory basis where such basis is required. Executive issuances must still respect the statute and Constitution.

B. Independent and quasi-independent regulators

Certain bodies are designed to exercise technical expertise with some insulation (e.g., regulatory commissions, constitutional commissions in their constitutional sphere). Their independence does not elevate them above statutory constraints; it usually changes who may direct them and how.

X. Congressional Checks on Administrative Rule-Making

Even though agencies make rules, Congress remains structurally dominant through:

Enabling laws: Congress creates agencies, defines their jurisdiction, and sets standards.
Amendment/repeal: Congress can override regulatory policy by changing the statute.
Appropriations power: budget constraints can reshape regulatory capacity and priorities.
Legislative oversight and inquiries: Congress investigates implementation, sometimes prompting amendments.
Confirmation/appointments structure (where applicable): statutory design shapes leadership and accountability.

A recurring constitutional friction point is when statutes attempt to give Congress a post-enactment veto/control over regulations without passing a new law—mechanisms that may raise separation-of-powers concerns depending on design (the general constitutional principle favors bicameralism and presentment for binding legislative action).

XI. Judicial Review: How Courts Police the Boundary

A. Expanded judicial power and “grave abuse of discretion”

Philippine courts can review acts of any branch or instrumentality for grave abuse of discretion. This is crucial in administrative law because it supplies a constitutional hook to invalidate:

Ultra vires regulations;
Arbitrary or oppressive rules;
Issuances violating due process/publication requirements.

B. Standards courts commonly apply

Courts may examine:

Statutory authority: Is the regulation within the enabling law?
Consistency: Does it contradict the statute or Constitution?
Procedure: Was it properly published/filed? Were required hearings held?
Reasonableness: Is it arbitrary, confiscatory, or discriminatory?
Deference: Courts may give weight to expert agencies on technical matters, but not when the rule conflicts with law.

C. Common procedural vehicles

Challenges appear through:

Certiorari/prohibition/mandamus (especially for grave abuse);
Declaratory relief (when appropriate);
Injunctive relief in proper cases;
Direct constitutional challenges where standing and justiciability are met.

XII. Practical Implications in Regulated Sectors

A. Rate-setting and economic regulation

Agencies regulating utilities or transport often engage in quasi-legislative action (rules, rate orders, price caps). Because these can affect property rights and market structure, courts scrutinize:

Statutory basis;
Due process (hearings where required);
Non-confiscatory standards and reasonableness.

B. Tax administration (e.g., BIR issuances)

Tax regulations are common examples of interpretative and legislative rules. The strongest constraints are:

No taxation without law;
Publication and effectivity requirements;
The rule that regulations cannot enlarge tax liabilities beyond statute.

C. Licensing and permits

Many agencies implement statutes via licensing schemes. Key boundary issues:

“Hidden legislation” through permit conditions not rooted in law;
Delegated discretion without sufficient standards (risk of void delegation / arbitrary enforcement).

XIII. A Working Comparative Summary

Congress (Primary Legislation)

Constitutional legislative power
Broad policy-making authority
Can create crimes/taxes/rights/obligations (within constitutional limits)
Formal lawmaking process (bicameralism, presentment)
Statutes outrank regulations

Administrative Bodies (Subordinate Legislation)

Delegated authority only (statute/Constitution)
Implements policy; fills in details; technical regulation
Cannot contradict/expand statute; cannot create crimes or taxes absent clear legislative authorization
Validity often hinges on publication/filing and other procedural requirements
Subject to executive control/supervision (varies by agency design)
Subject to judicial review for ultra vires, unconstitutionality, grave abuse, procedural defects

XIV. Key Takeaways

Congress is the principal rule-maker; agencies are delegated implementers.
Delegation is valid only with completeness and sufficient standards.
Administrative rules can bind the public, but only if within authority and properly promulgated (publication/filing; hearings when required).
Agencies cannot amend statutes by regulation. IRR may supplement but not supplant.
Courts enforce the boundary through judicial review, including grave abuse of discretion.

If you want, I can also format this as a law review-style piece (abstract, keywords, structured footnote-style case list, and a model outline for class recitation), while keeping it purely Philippine-focused.