Quasi-Legislative or Rule-Making Power of Administrative Agencies: Requisites for Validity

In administrative law, the quasi-legislative power, also known as the rule-making power, is one of the inherent functions of administrative agencies. This power enables them to promulgate rules and regulations to implement or interpret statutes or carry out the objectives of laws. These rules have the force and effect of law, provided they meet certain requisites for validity.

Requisites for Validity of Administrative Rules and Regulations

For rules and regulations issued by administrative agencies to be considered valid and enforceable, they must meet the following essential requisites:

1. The Rule Must Be Within the Scope of Authority Delegated by Law

Administrative agencies derive their power to issue rules and regulations from enabling statutes. The following conditions must be met:

Express Delegation: The enabling law must expressly delegate the power to the administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations.
Within Scope of Authority: The rules and regulations must be consistent with and fall within the scope of authority granted by the enabling law. They should not go beyond or conflict with the legislative intent.

This means the agency cannot issue rules and regulations on matters that exceed its powers as delegated by law. Any rules issued outside of this scope are considered ultra vires (beyond authority) and are invalid.

Case Example: In People v. Maceren (1977), the Supreme Court struck down a rule issued by the Fisheries Commissioner, ruling that it was beyond the authority delegated to the agency under the Fisheries Law.

2. The Rule Must Be Promulgated in Accordance with the Procedure Prescribed by Law

For administrative rules to be valid, they must follow the proper procedural requirements as mandated by law. This includes:

Publication: Rules must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. This is in accordance with Executive Order No. 200 (1987), which states that laws and rules must be published before they take effect.

Case Example:
In Tañada v. Tuvera (1986), the Supreme Court held that laws and administrative rules, to be effective, must be published as a means of ensuring public knowledge.
Notice and Hearing (if required): While not all rules require a prior hearing, substantive rules that impose penalties or affect rights may require notice and the opportunity for affected parties to be heard. However, interpretative rules, which merely clarify the meaning of a statute, typically do not require a hearing.

Administrative Code of 1987: Section 9 of the Administrative Code provides that every rule-making process involving substantive rules must involve prior notice and public participation, especially when the rule may adversely affect individuals.
Filing: In certain cases, the rules must be filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center, as required by the Administrative Code.

3. The Rule Must Be Reasonable and Not Arbitrary or Oppressive

Rules and regulations must pass the test of reasonableness. This means that they must be rationally related to the purpose of the law and must not be arbitrary, capricious, or oppressive. They must not impose an undue burden on those affected or be disproportionate to the goal they intend to achieve.

Substantial Compliance: The regulations must substantially comply with the purposes for which they were enacted. They should be fair, not oppressive, and within reasonable limits.

Case Example:
In Paat v. Court of Appeals (1997), the Supreme Court struck down an administrative regulation that excessively burdened citizens by requiring multiple permits for the same activity, stating that it was unreasonable and violated the principle of simplicity in regulation.

4. The Rule Must Not Contradict the Law

Administrative regulations are meant to interpret or implement the law, and as such, they cannot conflict with the law they are meant to enforce. This includes the Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions.

Consistency with Law: The rule must not modify, amend, or be inconsistent with the statute it implements. If there is a conflict between the rule and the statute, the statute prevails.

Case Example:
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals (1996), a revenue regulation issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue was declared invalid for being inconsistent with the National Internal Revenue Code.

5. The Rule Must Be Clear and Definite

For a rule or regulation to be valid, it must be clear, definite, and understandable. Vague rules can lead to confusion and arbitrary enforcement, violating due process rights.

Doctrine of Void-for-Vagueness: If a rule is so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ in its application, it may be declared void for vagueness. Rules must be sufficiently precise to provide fair notice of what is required or prohibited.

Case Example:
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001), the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of void-for-vagueness when it found that certain provisions of the Anti-Plunder Law were so unclear that they failed to provide adequate notice of the conduct that was being prohibited.

6. The Rule Must Serve the Public Interest

Administrative rules must promote the public good or welfare. This requisite is aligned with the general welfare clause, which mandates that government actions, including administrative rules, should be in the public interest and not merely serve a select group or private interests.

Public Welfare: The rule must serve a legitimate public interest and should not only protect private or narrow interests. The regulation must benefit the common good.

Case Example:
In Agustin v. Edu (1979), a Land Transportation Commission regulation requiring motor vehicles to have early warning devices was upheld because it promoted public safety, which served the general welfare.

Classification of Administrative Rules

While understanding the requisites for validity, it is important to distinguish between substantive rules and interpretative rules:

Substantive Rules: These are rules that create, modify, or affect a legal right. These rules are subject to the full range of procedural requirements (e.g., notice and hearing).
Interpretative Rules: These clarify or explain existing statutes. These are generally not required to undergo the notice and hearing process because they do not impose new obligations but merely explain the existing ones.
Legislative Rules: These have the force and effect of law. They usually require compliance with the procedural due process requisites, such as publication and public participation.
Internal Regulations: These are meant for the internal administration of an agency and usually do not require publication or compliance with procedural due process rules.

Judicial Review of Administrative Rules

The validity of administrative rules and regulations is subject to judicial review. Courts can declare a rule invalid if it fails to meet any of the requisites for validity, particularly if:

It is ultra vires (beyond the powers granted by law);
It is unreasonable or oppressive;
It was issued without proper observance of procedural requirements;
It contradicts the law or the Constitution; or
It is vague and unclear.

Courts generally accord administrative agencies some level of deference in the interpretation of their enabling statutes. However, this deference is not absolute, and courts will scrutinize administrative rules closely when they affect substantive rights or involve constitutional issues.

Conclusion

The exercise of quasi-legislative or rule-making power by administrative agencies is essential to the implementation of laws. However, to ensure that this power is exercised in a manner consistent with legal principles and public interest, administrative rules and regulations must meet the requisites for validity, which include authority, procedure, reasonableness, consistency with law, clarity, and public interest. Failure to comply with any of these requisites may render the rules invalid and subject to judicial challenge.