QUASI-JUDICIAL-FUNCTION and QUASI JUDICIAL AGENCY.pptx

Introduction: Defining Quasi-Judicial Function

In the realm of governance, the functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are traditionally distinct. However, in many legal systems, a nuanced role known as quasi-judicial function emerges, blurring the lines between these branches. Quasi-judicial functions refer to activities undertaken by administrative bodies that are akin to judicial functions, involving the adjudication of disputes, interpretation of laws, and decision-making with legal implications. This essay endeavors to delve deep into the concept of quasi-judicial functions and the agencies that wield them, exploring their significance, challenges, and implications within modern governance frameworks.

Understanding Quasi-Judicial Function

The term "quasi" denotes a resemblance or similarity, indicating that quasi-judicial functions share similarities with judicial functions but are not wholly judicial in nature. These functions typically involve the application of legal principles to specific cases, similar to how courts interpret laws and adjudicate disputes. However, unlike courts, quasi-judicial bodies operate within administrative frameworks, possessing specialized expertise in particular areas of law or policy. They are often tasked with making decisions on regulatory matters, licensing, disciplinary actions, and other administrative issues.Characteristics of Quasi-Judicial Functions

Several key characteristics distinguish quasi-judicial functions from purely administrative or legislative functions:

Adjudicatory Powers: Quasi-judicial bodies have the authority to adjudicate disputes and make binding decisions that affect the rights and interests of individuals or organizations.
Application of Law: Like courts, quasi-judicial agencies interpret and apply legal principles, statutes, regulations, and precedents to resolve cases brought before them.
Impartiality and Fairness: These bodies are expected to act impartially and fairly, providing all parties with an opportunity to present their arguments and evidence before rendering a decision.
Due Process: Quasi-judicial proceedings often adhere to principles of due process, including the right to be heard, the right to legal representation, and the right to appeal decisions.
Limited Scope: While quasi-judicial bodies exercise judicial-like functions, their jurisdiction is typically limited to specific areas of law or policy, such as labor relations, environmental regulation, or professional licensing.
Examples of Quasi-Judicial Functions

Quasi-judicial functions manifest in various forms across different jurisdictions and regulatory domains:

Zoning Boards: These bodies determine land-use applications, such as requests for variances or special permits, by applying zoning ordinances and considering factors like community impact and property rights.
Administrative Tribunals: Tribunals specializing in areas such as immigration, taxation, or labor disputes conduct her

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW QUASI-JUDICIAL

2. WHAT IS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION? A 'quasi-judicial function' is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. DEFINITION

3. JUDICIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL Judiciary Branch Executive Branch Supreme Court, Higher Court, District Court etc. A rbitration panel or Tribunal Board Subject to appeal in a higher court Subject to appeal within the administrative bodies or to a higher court Legal decisions made by a court of law Legal decisions made by administrative bodies or boards Decisions are made by a judge or a panel of judges Decisions are made by individuals or panels appointed by the agency Based on the application of existing laws to a specific case Based on the application of laws and regulations to a specific case

4. The proper exercise of the quasi-judicial power requires compliance with two conditions, to wit: (A) Jurisdiction must be properly acquired by the administrative body. (B) Due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.

5. Jurisdiction may be simply defined as the competence of an office or body to act on a given matter or decide a certain question. Without jurisdiction, the determinations made by the administrative bodies are absolutely null and without any legal effect whatsoever. Such acts are subject to direct and even collateral attack and may be assailed at any time since they are regarded as invalid ab initio . DEFINITION A. Jurisdiction

6. Due process refers to the fundamental principle that individuals are entitled to fair treatment, procedural fairness, and legal protection when their rights, interests, or liberties are at stake in administrative proceedings. This includes the right to notice of the charges or allegations, the opportunity to be heard, the right to present evidence and arguments, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a reasoned decision based on the evidence presented . Due process ensures that administrative actions or decisions are made impartially, transparently, and in accordance with principles of justice and fairness. DEFINITION B. Due process

7. A re entities that possess powers and functions that are similar to those of a court, but they are NOT considered full judicial bodies. These bodies are typically established by governments to perform SPECIFIC adjudicatory functions, often in specialized areas of law or regulation. In administrative law, quasi-judicial bodies play a crucial role in resolving disputes and making decisions in areas such as administrative hearings, regulatory compliance, and enforcement. Quasi-Judicial Bodies DEFINITION

8. Administrative tribunals Commissions Boards Appeal Boards or Review Panels Adjudicative Officers or Hearing Officers Example of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

9. Administrative Tribunals These are specialized bodies established to adjudicate disputes in specific areas of administrative law. For example, there may be tribunals dealing with labor disputes, immigration appeals, or environmental regulation.

10. Commissions A re bodies that are empowered to regulate and adjudicate matters within their designated areas of authority. They may have quasi-judicial powers to conduct hearings, gather evidence, and make decisions on issues such as consumer protection, telecommunications, or securities regulation.

11. Boards Similar to commissions, boards are entities with quasi-judicial powers that oversee and regulate certain industries or activities. Examples include licensing boards for professionals like doctors or lawyers, as well as zoning boards responsible for land-use decisions.

12. Appeal Boards or Review Panel These bodies hear appeals from decisions made by lower-level administrative officials or agencies. They review the decisions based on the record of the proceedings and may have the authority to uphold, overturn, or modify the original decision.

13. Adjudicative Officers or Hearing Officers Some administrative agencies designate individual officers to conduct hearings and make decisions in contested cases. These officers act in a quasi-judicial capacity, hearing evidence, making findings of fact, and issuing decisions or recommendations.

14. Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) 02 03 04 05 06 SAMPLE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES IN THE PHILIPPINES Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Civil Service Commission (CSC) Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commission on Higher Education (CHED) National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) 07 08 01

15. 1. Rate Setting 2. Contract Disputes 3. Licensing and Permits 4. Compliance and Enforcement 5. Complaint Resolution Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC)

16. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) 1. Franchise Applications 2. Route Determination 3. Fare Setting 4. Safety and Quality Standards 5. Complaint Resolution

17. Commission on Human Rights (CHR) 1. Investigation of Human Rights Violations 2. Mediation and Conciliation 3. Fact-finding Inquiries 4. Monitoring Compliance with Human Rights Standards 5. Public Education and Advocacy

18. Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) 1. Disciplinary Proceedings 2. Examination Irregularities 3. Application Review 4. Appeals and Petitions 5. Regulatory Compliance

19. Civil Service Commission (CSC) 1. Administrative Appeals 2. Examination Irregularities 3. Complaints of Nepotism and Misconduct 4. Personnel Actions and Policies 5. Certification of Eligibility

20. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 1. Securities Regulation 2. Corporate Governance 3. Investor Protection 4. Enforcement Actions 5. Market Oversight

21. Commission on Higher Education (CHED) 1. Program Compliance 2. Accreditation and Recognition 3. Student Complaints and Grievances 4. Academic Freedom and Rights 5. Regulatory Compliance

22. National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) 1. Disciplinary Cases 2. Promotions and Appointments 3. Appeals and Complaints 4. Recruitment and Selection 5. Monitoring and Oversight

23. Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Functions Parties must be provided with adequate notice of the proceedings, including the nature of the allegations or issues involved, the time, date, and place of the hearing, and any other relevant information. This allows parties to prepare their defense and participate effectively in the proceedings. 1. Notice

24. Parties have the right to be heard and present their case before the quasi-judicial body. This includes the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make arguments in support of their position. The quasi-judicial body must provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their case and respond to allegations or evidence presented by other parties. 2. Opportunity to be heard Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Functions

25. Quasi-judicial proceedings must be presided over by impartial decision-makers who have no personal or financial interest in the outcome of the case. Decision-makers must act objectively and independently, without bias or favoritism toward any party involved in the proceedings. 3. Impartial decision-maker Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Functions

26. Quasi-judicial decisions must be based on the evidence presented during the proceedings and relevant laws, regulations, or policies. Decision-makers must carefully evaluate the evidence, weigh the arguments presented by the parties, and apply the law impartially in reaching their decision. 4. Evidence-based decision-making Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Functions

27. Parties have the right to appeal the decision of the quasi-judicial body to higher authorities or judicial courts if they believe that due process was not properly observed, or if there are errors in the decision-making process. The right to appeal provides a mechanism for parties to seek review of the decision and ensure that their legal rights have been protected. 5. Right to appeal Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Functions

28. Rules of Power The Subpoena Power The Contempt Power Quasi-Judicial Powers:

29. This refers to the authority of quasi-judicial bodies to establish and enforce rules of procedure governing their proceedings. These rules outline the process by which cases are heard, including procedures for filing complaints, presenting evidence, conducting hearings, and issuing decisions. Rules of power ensure consistency, fairness, and efficiency in quasi-judicial proceedings by providing a clear framework for parties to follow. Rules of Power

30. Quasi-judicial bodies have the authority to issue subpoenas, compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of evidence relevant to the proceedings. This power enables quasi-judicial bodies to gather information necessary for making informed decisions and resolving disputes effectively. Subpoenas may be issued to individuals, organizations, or entities requiring their presence at hearings or the submission of documents or other materials. 2. The Subpoena Power

31. The power to issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum is NOT inherent in administrative body and may ONLY BE EXERCISED IF ALLOWED by law and only in connection with the matter they are authorized to investigate. Note:

32. Quasi-judicial bodies possess contempt power, which allows them to enforce compliance with their orders, directives, or rulings and maintain the integrity of their proceedings. If a party fails to comply with a subpoena, disobeys a lawful order, or engages in behavior that disrupts the proceedings, the quasi-judicial body may hold them in contempt. Contempt powers enable quasi-judicial bodies to impose sanctions or penalties, such as fines or imprisonment, to compel compliance and uphold the authority of the body. 3. The Contempt Power

33. Contempt Power is essentially a judicial power and NOT inherent in administrative bodies. It MUST BE EXPRESSLY GRANTED and must be used only in the exercise of the quasi-judicial function. Note:

34. TEST OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION It refers to the evaluation criteria or standards used to assess the performance, competence, or legality of administrative actions or decisions taken by government agencies or administrative bodies. This test involves examining whether the administrative action or decision is within the agency's jurisdiction, supported by substantial evidence, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, and free from error, bias, or arbitrariness. DEFINITION