34861568 admin law digests

8/6/2019 34861568 Admin Law Digests

1/18


2/18


3/18


4/18


5/18


6/18


7/18


8/18


9/18


10/18


11/18


12/18


13/18


14/18


15/18


16/18


17/18


18/18

KCA Digests 2009-20102. Whether or not the petitioners needed to exhaust administrative

remedies available

HELD:

1. NO. There is an established procedure for the removal of directorsand officers of cooperatives. It is likewise manifest that the right todue process is respected by the express provision on the opportunityto be heard. But even without said provision , petitioners cannot bedeprived of that right. The procedure was not followed in this case.Respondent Secretary of Agriculture arrogated himself the power ofthe members of the KBMBPM who are authorized to vote to remove

the petitioning directors and officers. He cannot take refuge underPD 175 which grants him the authority to supervise and regulate allcooperatives. An administrative officer has only such powers as areexpressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in theexercise thereof. These powers should not be extended byimplication beyond what may be necessary for their just andreasonable execution.

2. NO. The rule is well-settled that this requirement does not applywhere the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an

alter ego of the President, bear the implied approval of the latter,unless actually disapproved by him. This doctrine of qualified politicalagency ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed.There was no need to appeal the decision to the Office of thePresident; recourse to the courts could be had immediately.Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies alsoyields to other exceptions, such as when the question involved ispurely legal, as in the instant case, or where the questioned act ispatently illegal, arbitrary or oppressive. Such is the claim ofpetitioners which, as hereinafter shown, is correct.

34861568 admin law digests

Documents