Question: Can an administrative agency pursuant to its charter formulate rules to implement the mandated objectives of the agency?
Answer: Yes, under the doctrine of delegation of powers, administrative agencies have the authority to promulgate issuances provided they conform with the congressional act vesting in them such power. To bind third parties, the promulgated rules must be published. (Tanada v. Tuvera, factors to consider when one is a publication of general circulation)
The administrative agency must likewise comply with the twin tests of valid delegation, to wit:
1. Completeness Test; and
2. Sufficient Standard Test
Question: Can SMLI assail the decision of the BCDA to ignore its submitted proposal under its Competitive Challenge despite compliance with the rules for the disposal of the property in question?
Answer: Yes. SMLI has the right to a completed competitive challenge pursuant to the NEDA Joint Venture Guidelines and the Certification issued by the BCDA.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, acts of the President providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in Executive Orders. The NEDA Joint Venture Guidelines and the Competitive Challenge are incorporated in presidential issuances and officers of NEDA and BCDA were likewise authorized by the President to undertake steps to carry out the tasks.
Question: Can SMLI invoke the application of the alter ego doctrine when the BCDA recommended to the Office of the President that the SMLI submitted bid proposal under BCDA’s Competitive Challenge be totally ignored?
Answer : Yes. In this particular case the executive power to issue rules and regulations on procurement has been delegated to the President’s alter egos, partcularly to NEDA and BCDA. BCDA can no longer renege on submitted proposal of SMLI under its Competitive Challenge. By allowing SMLI, to submit “voluntary and unconditional proposal” to improve the original offer, BCDA is now precluded from changing the rules it earlier promulgated. SMLI was led to believe that BCDA has been duly authorized to act on behalf of the Office of the President.
DELEGATION OF POWERS AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS ( Dr. Gobenciong v. Ombudsman)
Question: Is the Ombudsman empowered to investigate, conduct the prosecution and implement disciplinary actions against public officers?
Answer: Yes. The provisions of R.A.No. 6770 granting investigative, prosecutorial and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman are constitutional. The Office of the Ombudsman is a creature of the Constitution. The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the office to be strong and effective, with sufficient bite and muscle to enable it to carry out its mandate as protector of the people against the inept, abusive, and corrupt public officers in the Government.
Question: Was there a valid delegation of power under R.A. No. 6770 provisos granting investigative, prosecutorial and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman?
Answer: Yes. It is the 1987 Constitution no less which granted and allowed the grant by Congress of sweeping prosecutorial, investigatory, and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman. The framers of the Constitution, however, left it to Congress to invest the office with more broad powers to enforce its own action.
Thus, R.A. No. 6770 was enacted empowering, under Sec. 15(1) thereof, the Ombudsman to take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of government, the investigation of cases of which the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction.
N.B. The Ombudsman may delegate to DOJ the prosecution of cases involving public officers.
Read Ombudsman v. C.A. and Mayor Binay on the abandonment of the Aguinaldo Doctrine which allowed condonation of acts of elective public officers.