Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

Post No. 100 enumerated the exceptions to the exhaustion of remedies doctrine. This one covers the overall view of what judicial review of administrative decisions constitute. The questions to be raised in cases of judicial review of administrative bodies are grouped into the following:

1.) Questions of Law

2.) Questions of Fact

Generally, factual findings are binding on the court if backed by evidence. The court will not entertain questions of fact unless any of the following are present:

a.) The law clearly allows it.

b.) There was fraud, an imposition or a mistake other than an error in judgment when the evidence was evaluated.

c.) The body committed an error in appreciating the pleadings or interpreting the documentary evidence.

3.) Questions of Mixed Law and Fact

If factual findings are involved in and dependent on resolving a legal question.

Factual findings are given attention if they're supported by sufficient evidence (see Levels of Evidence.) Findngs based on the expertise of the different agencies are given a lot of respect. Factual findings, however can be challenged if their credibility is called to question. In that case, the court will try to come up with a finding that is close to the evidence. Administrative findings can only be set aside if there is proof of fraud, grave abuse of discretion or errors of law.

A judicial review is not a de novo trial. It's an inquiry into whether the findings of the administrative bodies are consistent with law, supported by evidence and fraud-free.