You are on page 1of 11

ADMIN AGENCIES On August 14, 2001, Commissioner Flores to adopt an early retirement or financial assistance plan,

forwarded this Memorandum to Dimagiba, who in turn such authority was limited by the very law it was seeking to
1. G.R. No. 162372. October 11, 2011.* forwarded it to Garcia. But Garcia responded, taking implement.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) exception to the notice of disallowance for being “highly
petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) irregular and precipitate” as it was based on mere opinion of 2. MMDA vs Garin (GR 130230, 2005)
,respondent. COA’s consel who had no authority to declare GSIS Board
of Trustees as null and void. Moreover, Garcia said that Facts:
Facts: COA had neither power nor authority to declare null and The issue arose from an incident involving the respondent
Republic Act No. 8291, otherwise known as “The void certain resolutions approved by the Board of Dante O. Garin, a lawyer, who was issued a traffic violation
Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997” (the Government Corporations, as the power to do so was receipt (TVR) by MMDA and his driver's license confiscated
GSIS Act) was enacted and approved, amending exclusively lodged before the courts. for parking illegally along Gandara Street, Binondo, Manila,
Presidential Decree No. 1146, as amended, expanding and on August 1995.
increasing the coverage and benefits of the GSIS, and Issue:
instituting reforms therein. Pursuant to the powers granted Whether or not GSIS is clothe with authority to Shortly before the expiration of the TVR's validity, the
to it under Section 41(n) of the said law, the GSIS Board of adopt a Retirement/Financial Assistance to it’s employees. respondent addressed a letter to then MMDA Chairman
Trustees, upon the recommendation of the Management- Prospero Oreta requesting the return of his driver's license,
Employee Relations Committee (MERCOM), approved Held: and expressing his preference for his case to be filed in
Board Resolution No. 326 wherein they adopted the GSIS NO.It is true that under Section 41(n) of Republic court.
Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan (ELIP). Act No. 8291, Government Service Insurance System
On November 21, 2000, Board Resolution No. 326 (GSIS) is expressly granted the power to adopt a retirement Receiving no immediate reply, Garin filed the original
was amended by Board Resolution No. 360, which provided plan and/or financial assistance for its employees, but a complaint with application for preliminary injunction,
for a single rate for all positions, regardless of salary grade. closer look at the provision readily shows that this power is contending that, in the absence of any implementing rules
Dimagiba, the corporate auditor of GSIS, communicated to not absolute.—It is true that under Section 41(n) of Republic and regulations, Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924 grants the
the President and General Manager of GSIS that the GSIS Act No. 8291, GSIS is expressly granted the power to adopt MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive erring motorists of
RFP was contrary to law. However, the GSIS Legal a retirement plan and/or financial assistance for its their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination of the
Services Group opined that the GSIS Board is authorized to employees, but a closer look at the provision readily shows validity of the deprivation, thereby violating the due process
adopt the plan according to Sec. 28 (b) of Commonwealth that this power is not absolute. It is qualified by the words clause of the Constitution.
Act No. 186 as amended by R.A. No. 4968 has been “early,” “incentive,” and “for the purpose of retirement.” The
repealed by Sec. 3 and 41(n) of R.A. No. 8291. retirement plan must be an early retirement incentive plan The respondent further contended that the provision
On January 16, 2001, Board Resolution No. 69 and such early retirement incentive plan or financial violates the constitutional prohibition against undue
was approved, wherein ELIP was renamed GSIS assistance must be for the purpose of retirement. delegation of legislative authority, allowing as it does the
Retirement/Financial Plan (RFP) to conform strictly to the While the Government Service Insurance System MMDA to fix and impose unspecified — and therefore
wordings of Section 41(n) of Republic Act No. 8291. (GSIS) may have been clothed with authority to adopt an unlimited — fines and other penalties on erring motorists.
Upon Garcia’s assumption of office as President early retirement or financial assistance plan, such authority
and General Manager, Dimagiba requested to again review was limited by the very law it was seeking to implement.— The trial court rendered the assailed decision in favor of
the GSIS RFP, but this was denied by Garcia. Dimagiba The GSIS RFP was not created because of a valid herein respondent.
sought the assistance of COA in determining the legality company reorganization. Its purpose did not include the
and/or morality of said plan. COA General Counsel granting of benefits for early retirement. Neither did it Issue:
Alquizalas, issued a memorandum to Commissioner Flores provide benefits for either voluntary or involuntary 1. WON MMDA, through Sec. 5(f) of Rep. Act No. 7924
and opined that the GSIS RFP is a supplementary separation from GSIS. It was intended for employees who could validly exercise police power.
retirement plan, which is prohibited under R.A. 4968 or the were already eligible to retire under existing retirement
Teves Retirement Law. laws. While the GSIS may have been clothed with authority HELD:
Police Power, having been lodged primarily in the National and P.D. No. 1605 to the contrary notwithstanding," and role and the power of the State to regulate broadcast
Legislature, cannot be exercised by any group or body of that "(f)or this purpose, the Authority shall enforce all traffic media), a requirement that indecent language be avoided
individuals not possessing legislative power. The National laws and regulations in Metro Manila, through its traffic has its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of
Legislature, however, may delegate this power to the operation center, and may deputize members of the PNP, serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that
president and administrative boards as well as the traffic enforcers of local government units, duly licensed cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language.
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local security guards, or members of non-governmental
government units (LGUs). Once delegated, the agents can organizations to whom may be delegated certain authority, The SC ruled that ―Soriano‘s statement can be treated as
exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on subject to such conditions and requirements as the obscene, at least with respect to the average child,‖ and
them by the national lawmaking body. Authority may impose." thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected
speech. Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the
Our Congress delegated police power to the LGUs in the 3. Soriano v MTRCB GR165785,2009 High Court said that the analysis should be ―context
Local Government Code of 1991. 15 A local government is based‖ and found the utterances to be obscene after
a "political subdivision of a nation or state which is Facts: considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium,
constituted by law and has substantial control of local On August 10, 2004, at around 10:00 p.m., petitioner, as the time of the show, and the ―G‖ rating of the show,
affairs." 16 Local government units are the provinces, cities, host of the program Ang Dating Daan, aired on UNTV 37, which are all factors that made the utterances susceptible to
municipalities and barangays, which exercise police power made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before children viewers. The Court emphasized on how the uttered
through their respective legislative bodies. the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit- words could be easily understood by a child literally rather
complaints were lodged by Jessie L. Galapon and seven than in the context that they were used.‖
Metropolitan or Metro Manila is a body composed of several other private respondents, all members of the Iglesia ni
local government units. With the passage of Rep. Act No. Cristo (INC), against petitioner in connection with the above The SC also said ―that the suspension is not a prior
7924 in 1995, Metropolitan Manila was declared as a broadcast. Respondent Michael M. Sandoval, who felt restraint, but rather a ―form of permissible administrative
"special development and administrative region" and the directly alluded to in petitioner‘s remark, was then a minister sanction or subsequent punishment.‖ In affirming the power
administration of "metro-wide" basic services affecting the of INC and a regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority
region placed under "a development authority" referred to Daan. said that ―it is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly
as the MMDA. Thus: The MMDA is, as termed in the charter impose under its charter without running afoul of the free
itself, a "development authority." It is an agency created for Issue: speech clause.‖ visit fellester.blogspot.com The Court said
the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with Whether or not Soriano‘s statements during the televised that the suspension ―is not a prior restraint on the right of
the various national government agencies, people's ―Ang Dating Daan‖ part of the religious discourse and petitioner to continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating
organizations, non-governmental organizations and the within the protection of Section 5, Art.III. Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB,‖
private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of rather, it was a sanction for ―the indecent contents of his
basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its functions Held: utterances in a ―G‖ rated TV program.‖ (Soriano v.
are administrative in nature and these are actually summed No. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, Laguardia; GR No. 165636, April 29, 2009)
up in the charter itself therefore, and considering the adverse effect of petitioner‘s
* Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7924 enumerates the "Functions utterances on the viewers‘ fundamental rights as well as POWERS OF ADMIN AGENCIES
and Powers of the Metro Manila Development Authority." petitioner‘s clear violation of his duty as a public trustee, the
The contested clause in Sec. 5(f) states that the petitioner MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang 1. GMA vs MTRCB GR 148579, 2007
shall "install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, Dating Daan for three months. Furthermore, it cannot be FACTS:
impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of properly asserted that petitioner‘s suspension was an Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the
violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or undue curtailment of his right to free speech either as a UHF television station, EMC Channel 27. On January 7,
non-moving in nature, and confiscate and suspend or prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from 2000, respondent MTRCB issued an order of suspension
revoke drivers' licenses in the enforcement of such traffic the reasons given above (re the paramount of viewers against petitioner for airing "Muro Ami: The Making" without
laws and regulations, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 4136 rights, the public trusteeship character of a broadcaster‘s
first securing a permit from it as provided in Section 7 of PD The Making" is a public affairs program, this Court has
1986. A penalty of suspension was imposed based on already ruled that a public affairs program -- described as a
Memorandum Circular 98-17 for showing the film without variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television ISSUE:
the required permit from MTRCB. news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or
Petitioner complied with the suspension and it also filed a exchange of opinions -- is within the MTRCB’s power of 1. WON GSIS Board Resolution needs to be filed
letter-protest which was merely "noted" by the MTRCB review. with UP Law Center
thereby, in effect, denying both the motion for 2. WON a Special Civil action for Prohibition against
reconsideration and letter-protest. They filed with the CA 2. No. The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly GSIS Board – who is exercising quasi legislative and
which affirmed the MTRCB’s suspension order. Section 3, requires that each agency to file with the Office administrative function – is within the jurisdiction of RTC
of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the
ISSUE: University of the Philippines Law Center three certified
1. Whether the MTRCB has the power or authority to copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances HELD:
review the show "Muro Ami: The Making" prior to its which are not published or filed with the ONAR are
broadcast by television. ineffective and may not be enforced. Memorandum Circular 1. NO. Not all rules and regulations adopted by every
2. Whether Memorandum Circular No. 98-17 was No. 98-17 has not been registered with the ONAR as of government agency are to be filed with the UP Law Center.
enforceable and binding on petitioner (Admin MAIN ISSUE). January 27, 2000. Hence, it is thus unenforceable and Only those of general or of permanent character are to be
cannot be meted out to petitioner as punishment. filed. According to the UP Law Center’s guidelines for
HELD: receiving and publication of rules and regulations,
1. Yes. Section 3 of PD 1986 empowers the MTRCB 2. Board of Trustees vs Velasco GR 17046, 2011 “interpretative regulations and those merely internal in
to screen, review and examine all motion pictures, FACTS: nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the
television programs including publicity materials. This power Administrative agency and not the public,” need not be filed
of review is highlighted in its Rules and Regulation under On May 2002, Petitioners charged the respondents with with the UP Law Center
Sec. 7: administrative case for grave misconduct for their alleged
SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR participation and in the demonstration held by some GSIS Resolution No. 372 was about the new GSIS salary
REVIEW. -- No motion picture, television program or related employees to denounce the alleged corruption within the structure, Resolution No. 306 was about the authority to pay
publicity material shall be imported, exported, produced, agency and to oust its president Winston Garcia. The Board the 2002 Christmas Package, and Resolution No. 197 was
copied, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcasted placed the respondents under preventive suspension for 90 about the GSIS merit selection and promotion plan. Clearly,
by television without prior permit issued by the BOARD after days. the assailed resolutions pertained only to internal rules
review of the motion picture, television program or publicity meant to regulate the personnel of the GSIS. There was no
material On April 2003, respondent Molina requested for a step need for the publication or filing of these resolutions with the
increment but it was denied because he did not pass the UP Law Center.
qualifications mentioned in the Board Resolution. The
The only exemptions from the MTRCB’s power of review respondents filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for 2. YES. The petition for prohibition filed by
are those expressly mentioned in Section 7, such as: writ of preliminary injunction claiming that they were denied respondents is a special civil action which may be filed in
(1) Television programs imprinted or exhibited by the of their benefits as employees of GSIS due to their pending the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the
Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies, administrative case. Respondents also argued that the Sandiganbayan or the regional trial court, as the case may
and subject resolutions were ineffective because they were not be. It is also a personal action because it does not affect the
(2) Newsreels. registered with the UP Law Center pursuant to the Revised title to, or possession of real property, or interest therein. It
Administrative Code of 1987. may comment and be tried where the plaintiff or any of the
Thus "Muro Ami: The Making" is within the power of principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
MTRCB given that it is not one of the exemptions. The trial court granted the petition and declared the subject the principal defendants resides, at the election of the
Additionally, even though petitioner insists that "Muro Ami: Board Resolution null and void. plaintiff. Since respondent Velasco is a resident of the City
of Manila, the petition could properly be filed in the City of cited, does not constitute an undue delegation of legislative decision by lowering the legal interest rate from 12% to 6%
Manila. power. per annum from the date of the first written demand. The
CA affirmed the lower court’s decision and held that the
3. Cervantes vs Auditor General GR L-4043, 1952 RATIO: Delegation to Administrative Agencies. Under the only reason PNR refused to pay Kanlaon was because of
sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines COA’s Notices of Suspension and not Kanlaon’s non-
FACTS: It appears that petitioner was in 1949 the manager or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the completion of the projects.
of the NAFCO with a salary of P15,000 a year. By a delegate authority and prevent the delegation from running
resolution of the Board of Directors of this corporation riot. ISSUE:
approved on January 19 of that year, he was granted Were the projects completed?
quarters allowance of not exceeding P400 a month effective To "promote simplicity, economy and efficiency" is a
the first of that month. Submitted the Control Committee of sufficient standard.” HELD:
the Government Enterprises Council for approval, the said One of the reasons the COA issued the Notices of
resolution was disapproved on August 3, 1949. 4. PNR vs Kanlaon Suspension was because the contracts did not contain a
Certificate of Availability of Funds as required under
The Government Enterprises Council was created by the FACTS: Sections 85 and 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445. The
President under Executive Order No. 93 pursuant to In July 1990, PNR and Kanlaon entered into contracts for Administrative Code of 1987 expressly prohibits the
Republic Act No. 51, authorizing the President of the the repair of three PNR station buildings and passenger entering into contracts involving the expenditure of public
Philippines, among other things, to effect such reforms and shelters.By November 1990, Kanlaon alleged that it had funds unless two prior requirements are satisfied. First,
changes in government owned and controlled corporations already completed the three projects. there must be an appropriation law authorizing the
for the purpose of promoting simplicity, economy and expenditure required in the contract. Second, there must be
efficiency in their operation. The petitioner challenged the On 30 June 1994, Kanlaon sent a demand letter to PNR attached to the contract a certification by the proper
action of the Government Enteprises Council, contending requesting for the release of the retention money. However, accounting official and auditor that funds have been
that Executive Order No. 93 was an undue delegation of PNR denied Kanlaon’s demand because of the Notices of appropriated by law and such funds are available. The
power. Suspension issued by the Commission on Audit (COA). existence of appropriation and the attachment of the
Thus, forcing Kanlaon to file a complaint for collection of certification are conditions sine qua non for the execution of
ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order No. 93 is null and sum of money plus damages against PNR. In its amended government contracts. Thus, failure to comply with any of
void because it is based on a law that is unconstitutional as complaint, Kanlaon even impleaded the COA. these two requirements renders the contract void.
an illegal delegation of legislative power to the President.
In its answer, PNR admitted the existence of the three The clear purpose of these requirements is to insure that
RULING: No. As to the first ground, the rule is that so long contracts but alleged that Kanlaon did not comply with the government contracts are never signed unless supported by
as the Legislature "lays down a policy and a standard is conditions of the contract. Moreover, they alleged that the corresponding appropriation law and fund availability. In
established by the statute" there is no undue delegation. Kanlaon did not complete the projects. Thus, they did not the case at hand, the three contracts between PNR and
Republic Act No. 51 in authorizing the President of the have any unpaid balance. In addition to that, PNR added Kanlaon do not comply with the requirement of a
Philippines, among others, to make reforms and changes in that it had a valid ground to refuse the release of the certification of appropriation and fund availability. Even if a
government-controlled corporations, lays down a standard retention money because of the COA orders suspending certification of appropriation is not applicable to PNR if the
and policy that the purpose shall be to meet the exigencies the release of payment to Kanlaon. funds used are internally generated, still a certificate of fund
attendant upon the establishment of the free and availability is required. Thus, the three contracts between
independent government of the Philippines and to promote The TC ruled in favor of Kanlaon and ordered PNR to to PNR and Kanlaon are void.
simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operations. The pay the retention money and unpaid contract price with 12%
standard was set and the policy fixed. The President had to legal interest while COA was absolved of any liability for Therefore, the CA erred in affirming the decision of the
carry the mandate. This he did by promulgating the actual or moral damages. Thus, prompting PNR to file a lower court and it is reversed and set aside.
executive order in question which, tested by the rule above motion for reconsideration. As a result, the TC modified its
5. Pharmaceuticals and Health Care Association conventions or agreements under Article 19 and regulations The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
vs Duque under Article 21 come into force. Article 23 of the WHO of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
Constitution reads: qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
FACTS: Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to promulgate its rules for the purpose.
make recommendations to Members with respect to any
Named as respondents are the Health Secretary, matter within the competence of the Organization While petitioner concedes that the Supreme Court is
Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of the for an international rule to be considered as customary law, "authorized to promulgate its rules for the purpose," he
Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of herein it must be established that such rule is being followed by chafes at the creation of a purportedly "separate tribunal"
petition, the DOH is deemed impleaded as a co-respondent states because they consider it obligatory to comply with complemented by a budget allocation, a seal, a set of
since respondents issued the questioned RIRR in their such rules personnel and confidential employees, to effect the
capacity as officials of said executive agency.1Executive constitutional mandate.
Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become
Aquino on October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative part of the sphere of domestic law either Petitioner’s averment is supposedly supported by the
powers granted to the president under the Freedom provisions of the 2005 Rules of the Presidential Electoral
Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk By transformation or incorporation. The transformation Tribunal (2005 PET Rules), specifically:
Code states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 method requires that an international law be transformed
of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism (1) Rule 3 which provides for membership of the PET
Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies wherein the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices are
Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law designated as "Chairman and Members," respectively;
adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding is deemed to have the force of domestic law.
should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it (2) Rule 8(e) which authorizes the Chairman of the PET to
should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the appoint employees and confidential employees of every
permitted for breastmilk substitutes.In 1990, the Philippines provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The member thereof;
ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as
Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State part of the law of the land that can be implemented by (3) Rule 9 which provides for a separate "Administrative
Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by Staff of the Tribunal" with the appointment of a Clerk and a
and child mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, the legislature. Deputy Clerk of the Tribunal who, at the discretion of the
specially parents and children, are informed of the PET, may designate the Clerk of Court (en banc) as the
advantages of breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, the DOH 6. Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna vs SM Clerk of the Tribunal; and
issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect on Prime Holdings
July 7, 2006. (4) Rule 11 which provides for a "seal" separate and distinct
7. Macalintal vs Presidential Electoral Tribunal from the Supreme Court seal.
November 23, 2010
ISSUE: Whether or not the constitution of the PET,
Issue:
Whether Administrative Order or the Revised Implementing FACTS: composed of the Members of this Court, is unconstitutional,
Rules and Regulations (RIRR) issued by the Department of and violates Section 4, Article VII and Section 12, Article
Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal questioned the constitution of VIII of the Constitution.
Health (DOH) is not constitutional;
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as an illegal and
unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the RULING: Petition is dismissed.
Held: Constitution:
The Supreme Court, as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal
YES. Under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do (PET), specifically and exclusively clothed with jurisdiction
not come into force for members,in the same way that
by the Constitution to act respectively as "sole judge of all with full authority in the exercise thereof. The power wielded 1. Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution does not
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" by PET is a derivative of the plenary judicial power provide for the creation of the PET.
of the President and Vice-President. allocated to courts of law, expressly provided in the
2. The PET violates Section 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution. On the whole, the Constitution draws a thin,
A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily Constitution.
but, nevertheless, distinct line between the PET and the
reveals a grant of authority to the Supreme Court sitting en
Supreme Court. To bolster his arguments that the PET is an illegal and
banc. It states that, “The Supreme Court, sitting en banc
unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the PET is not simply an agency to which Members of the Court
Constitution, petitioner invokes the ruling on the
election, returns and qualifications of the President or Vice were designated. Once again, the PET, as intended by the
constitutionality of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC).
President and may promulgate its rules for the purpose." framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution
Petitioner cites the concurring opinion of Justice Teresita J.
independent, but not separate, from the judicial department,
The word "contest" in the provision means that the Leonardo-de Castro that the PTC is a public office which
i.e., the Supreme Court.
jurisdiction of this Court can only be invoked after the cannot be created by the President, the power to do so
election and proclamation of a President or Vice President. As regards petitioner’s claim that the PET exercises quasi- being lodged exclusively with Congress. Thus, petitioner
There can be no "contest" before a winner is proclaimed. judicial functions in contravention of Section 12, Article VIII submits that if the President,as head of the Executive
of the Constitution, issue raised is more imagined than real. Department, cannot create the PTC, the Supreme Court,
To foreclose all arguments of petitioner, we reiterate that
Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution reads: likewise, cannot create the PET in the absence of an act of
the establishment of the PET simply constitutionalized what
legislature.
was statutory before the 1987 Constitution. The experiential SEC. 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other
context of the PET in our country cannot be denied. courts established by law shall not be designated to any On the other hand, in its Comment to the Motion for
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Reconsideration, the Office of the Solicitor General
PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme
maintains that the constitution of the PET is “on firm footing
Court, albeit it has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It Consistent with our presidential system of government, the
on the basis of the grant of authority to the [Supreme] Court
is obvious that the PET was constituted in implementation function of "dealing with the settlement of disputes,
to be the sole judge of all election contests for the President
of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully controversies or conflicts involving rights, duties or
or Vice-President under paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII
complies – not unlawfully defies – the constitutional prerogatives that are legally demandable and enforceable"
of the 1987 Constitution.”
directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the is apportioned to courts of justice.
change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the In a nutshell, both parties just repeated the same
June 7, 2011
Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the arguments presented in the original petition aside from the
Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to highlight the FACTS: cited issue of PTC’s constitutionality.
singularity and exclusivity of the Tribunal’s functions as a
This is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Atty. IT’S THE SAME ISSUE: Whether or not the constitution of
special electoral court.
Romulo B. Macalintal of our the Court’s Decision in G.R. the PET, composed of the Members of this Court, is
It is also beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as No. 191618 dated November 23, 2010, dismissing his unconstitutional, and violates Section 4, Article VII and
PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election petition and declaring the establishment of respondent Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.
contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as constitutional.
RULING: Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The
With the explicit provision, the present Constitution has Petitioner reiterates his arguments on the alleged Court’s DECISION stands.
allocated to the Supreme Court, in conjunction with latter’s unconstitutional creation of the PET:
The Court reiterated that the PET is authorized by the last
exercise of judicial power inherent in all courts, the task of
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution and as
deciding presidential and vice-presidential election contests,
supported by the discussions of the Members of the fact, mentioned in the deliberations of the Members of the Ratio: A permanent appointment in the career service is
Constitutional Commission, which drafted the present Constitutional Commission during the drafting of the present issued to a person who has met the requirements of the
Constitution. Constitution. position to which the appointment is made in accordance
with the provisions of law, the rules and the standards
Judicial power granted to the Supreme Court by the same promulgated pursuant thereto. It implies the civil service
Constitution is plenary. And under the doctrine of necessary 8. Abella vs CSC eligibility of the appointee. The law requires the
implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last Facts: Petitioner, a lawyer, retired from the Export appointment to be submitted to the CSC which will
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), as Department ascertain, in the main, whether the proposed appointee is
decide presidential and vice-presidential elections contests Manager of the Legal Services Department. He held a civil qualified to hold the position and whether the rules pertinent
includes the means necessary to carry it into effect. service eligibility for the position of Department Manager, to the process of appointment were observed.
having completed the training program for Executive The appointing officer and the CSC acting together, though
The explicit reference by the framers of our Constitution to Leadership and Management in 1982 under the Civil not concurrently but consecutively, make an appointment
constitutionalizing what was merely statutory before is not Service Academy, pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 850, complete In acting on the appointment, the CSC determines
diluted by the absence of a phrase, line or word, mandating which was then the required eligibility for said position. whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil
the Supreme Court to create a Presidential Electoral The CSC issued issued Memorandum Circular No. 21, service eligibility or the required qualifications. If the
Tribunal. series of 1994 (Pertinent provision: Positions covered by appointee does, the appointment must be approved; if not,
the CES: (a) the position is a career position, (b) above it should be disapproved. According to the CA, only the
Suffice it to state that the Constitution, verbose as it already division chief level (c) duties and responsibilities require appointing authority had the right to challenge the CSC’s
is, cannot contain the specific wording required by petitioner performance of executive or managerial functions. Upon disapproval. It relied on Section 2 of Rule VI of CSC
in order for him to accept the constitutionality of the PET. promotion or transfer to other Career Executive Service Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998, which provides: “Section
(CES) positions, these incumbents shall be under 2. Request for Reconsideration of, or appeal from, the
The Court also previously declared that the PET is not temporary status in said other CES positions until they disapproval of an appointment may be made by the
simply an agency to which Members of the Court were qualify.’) appointing authority and submitted to the Commission
designated. Once again, the PET, as intended by the “Two years after retirement, petitioner was hired by the within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the
framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution SBMA on a contractual basis. He was issued by SBMA a disapproved appointment.”
independent, but not separate, from the judicial department. permanent employment as Department Manager III, Labor Appointing Authority’s Right to Challenge CSC Disapproval
The vehicle for the exercise of this power, as intended by and Employment Center. However, when said appointment The power of appointment necessarily entails the exercise
was submitted to CSC Regional Office No. III, it was of judgment and discretion. Significantly, “the selection of
the Constitution and specifically mentioned by the
disapproved on the ground that petitioner’s eligibility was the appointee -- taking into account the totality of his
Constitutional Commissioners during the discussions on the
not appropriate. Petitioner was advised by SBMA of the qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define
grant of power to this Court, is the PET. Thus, a disapproval of his appointment. In view thereof, petitioner his personality -- is the prerogative of the appointing
microscopic view, like the petitioner's, should not constrict was issued a temporary appointment. The CSC affirmed the authority.” No tribunal, not even this Court, may compel the
an absolute and constitutional grant of judicial power. disapproval of his permanent appointment. The CA exercise of an appointment for a favored person.
shunned the issue of constitutionality of the Memo Circular. The CSC’s disapproval of an appointment is a challenge to
The decision therein held that the PTC “finds justification
It ruled that petitioner has no standing as only the the exercise of the appointing authority’s discretion. The
under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution.” A plain appointing officer may request reconsideration of the action appointing authority must have the right to contest the
reading of the constitutional provisions, i.e., last paragraph taken by the CSC. Also, petitioner was not the real party in disapproval. Thus, Section 2 of Rule VI of CSC
of Section 4 and Section 17, both of Article VII on the interest as his appointment was dependent on the CSC’s Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998 is justified insofar as it
Executive Branch, reveals that the two are differently approval. allows the appointing authority to request reconsideration or
worded and deal with separate powers of the Executive and appeal.
the Judicial Branches of government. And as previously Issue: Who may file reconsideration or appeal Appointee’s Legal Standing to Challenge the CSC
adverted to, the basis for the constitution of the PET was, in Disapproval
While there is justification to allow the appointing authority should have the same right. , CSC Resolution 99-1936 supervisory capacity requiring less than four years of
to challenge the CSC disapproval, there is none to preclude recognizes the right of the adversely affected party to collegiate studies;
the appointee from taking the same course of action. appeal to the CSC Regional Offices prior to elevating a “(b) The second level shall include professional, technical,
Aggrieved parties, including the CSC, should be given the matter to the CSC Central Office. The adversely affected and scientific positions which involve professional,
right to file MRs or to appeal. party necessarily includes the appointee. This judicial technical, or scientific work in a non-supervisory or
Although commonly directed towards ensuring that only pronouncement does not override Mathay v. CSC, which supervisory capacity requiring at least four years of college
certain parties can maintain an action, “legal standing” and the CA relied on. The Court merely noted in passing -- by work up to Division Chief level; and
“real party in interest” are different concepts. “The question way of obiter -- that based on a similar provision, only the “(c) The third level shall cover positions in the Career
in standing is whether such parties have ‘alleged such a appointing officer could request reconsideration of actions Executive Service.”
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure taken by the CSC on appointments. Entrance to the different levels requires the corresponding
that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation In that case, QC Mayor Mathay Jr. sought the nullification of civil service eligibility. Those in the third level (CES
of issues upon which the court so largely depends for CSC Resolutions that recalled his appointment. He filed a positions) require Career Service Executive Eligibility
illumination of difficult constitutional questions. On the other Petition assailing the CA Decision, which had previously (CSEE) as a requirement for permanent appointment.
hand, the question as to ‘real party-in-interest’ is whether he denied his Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy The challenged Circular did not revoke petitioner’s ELM
is ‘the party who would be [benefited] or injured by the and for being filed out of time. The CSC Resolutions then eligibility. He was appointed to a CES position; however,
judgment, or the ‘party entitled to the avails of the suit.’” were already final and could no longer be elevated to the his eligibility was inadequate. Eligibility must necessarily
If legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionality CA. Mathay’s Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA was conform to the requirements of the position, which in
or validity of a law or governmental act despite the lack of improper, because there was an available remedy of petitioner’s case was a CSEE.
personal injury on the challenger’s part, then more so appeal. And the CSC could not have acted without Rights Protected
should petitioner be allowed to contest the CSC Order jurisdiction, considering that it was empowered to recall an The challenged Circular protects the rights of incumbents
disapproving his appointment. Clearly, he was prejudiced appointment initially approved. as long as they remain in the positions to which they were
by the disapproval, since he could not continue his office. The right of the appointee to seek MR or appeal was not the previously appointed. They are allowed to retain their
Although petitioner had no vested right to the position, it issue in Mathay. At any rate, the present case is being positions in a permanent capacity, notwithstanding the lack
was his eligibility that was being questioned. Corollary to decided en banc, and the ruling may reverse previous of CSEE. Clearly, the Circular recognizes the rule of
this point, he should be granted the opportunity to prove his doctrines laid down by this Court. prospectivity of regulations; hence, there is no basis to
eligibility. He had a personal stake in the outcome of the argue that it is an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder.
case, which justifies his challenge to the CSC act that Issue: WON the Section 4 of the CSC Memo Circular is These terms, which have settled meanings in criminal
denied his permanent appointment. unconstitutional jurisprudence, are clearly inapplicable here.
The Appointee a Real Party in Interest The government service of petitioner ended when he retired
The rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as Held: in 1996; thus, his right to remain in a CES position,
distinguished from a mere expectancy; or from a future, notwithstanding his lack of eligibility, also ceased. Upon his
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The Ratio: In the exercise of its authority, the CSC deemed it reemployment years later as department manager III at
appointee is rightly a real party in interest too. He is also appropriate to clearly define and identify positions covered SBMA in 2001, it was necessary for him to comply with the
injured by the CSC disapproval, because he is prevented by the Career Executive Service. Logically, the CSC had to eligibility prescribed at the time for that position.
from assuming the office in a permanent capacity. issue guidelines to meet this objective, specifically through Security of Tenure Not Impaired
Moreover, he would necessarily benefit if a favorable the issuance of the challenged Circular. First, security of tenure in the Career Executive Service --
judgment is obtained, as an approved appointment would Career Service Classified by Levels except in the case of first and second level employees in
confer on him all the rights and privileges of a permanent Positions in the career service, for which appointments the civil service -- pertains only to rank, not to the position to
appointee. require examinations, are grouped into three major levels: which the employee may be appointed Second, petitioner
Appointee Allowed Procedural Relief “(a) The first level shall include clerical, trades, crafts, and had neither rank nor position prior to his reemployment.
The view that only the appointing authority may request custodial service positions which involve non-professional One cannot claim security of tenure if one held no tenure
reconsideration or appeal is too narrow. The appointee or sub[-]professional work in a non-supervisory or prior to appointment.
Due Process Not Violated Dismissal of a criminal action does not foreclose institution
The classification of positions in career service was a quasi- 9. Reyna vs COA of an administrative proceeding against the same
legislative, not a quasi-judicial, issuance. This distinction respondent, nor carry with it the relief from administrative
determines whether prior notice and hearing are necessary. liability. Res judicata did not set in because there is no
In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative 10. Flores vs Montemayor identity of causes of action. Moreover, the decision of the
body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in FACTS: At bar is a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Ombudsman dismissing the criminal complaint cannot be
accordance with the standards laid down by the law. The Decision setting aside Decision of the CA and reinstating considered a valid and final judgment. On the criminal
determination of facts and the applicable law, as basis for the Decision of the Office of the President which found the complaint, the Ombudsman only had the power to
official action and the exercise of judicial discretion, are respondent administratively liable for failure to declare in his investigate and file the appropriate case before the
essential for the performance of this function. On these 2001 and 2002 Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities Sandiganbayan.
considerations, it is elementary that due process (SSAL) two expensive cars registered in his name, in
requirements, as enumerated in Ang Tibay, must be violation of Section 7, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 in The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res
observed. These requirements include prior notice and relation to Section 8 (A) of R.A. No. 6713. judicata in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The
hearing. doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-
On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is exercised by ISSUE/s: WON (1) the two administrative/criminal judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative
administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules Investigations is a violation of respondent’s constitutional powers. - Montemayor v. Bundalian
and regulations within the confines of the granting statute right against "double jeopardy";
and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain powers flowing (2) he was deprived of due process. As the PCAGC’s investigation of petitioner was
from the separation of the great branches of the (3) the penalty prescribed is too harsh; and administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no
government. Prior notice to and hearing of every affected (4) which gov’t. agency’s decision must be followed application in the case at bar.
party, as elements of due process, are not required since
there is no determination of past events or facts that have to HELD: (1) NO. Double jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a (2) NO. The essence of due process in administrative
be established or ascertained. As a general rule, prior valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek
notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As
or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct. (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard
Significantly, the challenged Circular was an internal matter case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process
addressed to heads of departments, bureaus and agencies. express consent of the accused. None of these requisites are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the
It needed no prior publication, since it had been issued as applies where the Ombudsman only conducted a denial of the opportunity to be heard. Having persisted in
an incident of the administrative body’s power to issue preliminary investigation of the same criminal offense his refusal to file his pleadings and evidence before the
guidelines for government officials to follow in performing against the respondent public officer. The dismissal of a PAGC, respondent cannot validly claim that his right to due
their duties. case during preliminary investigation does not constitute process was violated.
double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part of
Disapproval of Appointment the trial The OP rendered its Decision adopting the PAGC’s findings
Since petitioner had no CES eligibility, the CSC correctly and recommendation on March 23, 2004. As thus shown, a
denied his permanent appointment. The appointee need “a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public period of ten (10) months had elapsed from the time
not have been previously heard, because the nature of the official or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for respondent was directed to file his counter-affidavit or
action did not involve the imposition of an administrative violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission. This verified answer to the administrative complaint filed against
disciplinary measure. The CSC, in approving or means that a public officer may be held civilly, criminally, him, up to the rendition of the OP’s decision. It cannot
disapproving an appointment, merely examines the and administratively liable for a wrongful doing.” - Tecson v. therefore be said that the PAGC and OP proceeded with
conformity of the appointment with the law and the Sandiganbayan undue haste in determining respondent’s administrative
appointee’s possession of all the minimum qualifications guilt.
and none of the disqualification.
In any event, respondent was served with a copy of the OP 2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. The rule is that initial acquisition of jurisdiction by a court of
Decision, was able to seek reconsideration of the said 3) The decision must have something to support itself. concurrent jurisdiction divests another of its own jurisdiction.
decision, and appeal the same to the CA. 4) The evidence must be substantial. Having already taken cognizance of the complaint against
5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence the respondent involving non-declaration in his 2001 and
Terminating the investigation and submitting the case for presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record 2002 SSAL, the PAGC thus retained jurisdiction over
resolution based on available evidence upon failure of the and disclosed to the parties affected. respondent’s administrative case notwithstanding the
respondent to file his counter-affidavit or answer despite 6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its subsequent filing of a supplemental complaint before the
giving him ample opportunity to do so is allowed by the or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of Ombudsman charging him with the same violation.
Rules of Procedure of the PAGC. The PAGC is also not the controversy and not simply accept the views of a
required to furnish the respondent and complainant copy of subordinate in arriving at a decision. Section 12 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution mandated
its resolution. 7) The board or body should, in all controversial question, the Ombudsman to act promptly on complaints filed in any
render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the form or manner against public officials or employees of the
The OP’s complete reliance on the PAGC’s findings and proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the Government, or any subdivision, agency, instrumentality
recommendation did not constitute a gross violation of reason for the decision rendered. thereof, including government-owned or controlled
administrative due process. The relevant consideration is corporations. Under Section 13, Article XI, the Ombudsman
not the brevity of the above disquisition adopting fully the There is no requirement in Ang Tibay that the decision must is empowered to conduct investigations on his own or upon
findings and recommendation of the PAGC as the express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which complaint by any person when such act appears to be
investigating authority. It is rather the fact that the OP is not it is based. For as long as the administrative decision is illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. He is also given
a court but an administrative body determining the liability of grounded on evidence, and expressed in a manner that broad powers to take the appropriate disciplinary actions
respondent who was administratively charged, in the sufficiently informs the parties of the factual and legal bases against erring public officials and employees.
exercise of its disciplinary authority over presidential of the decision, the due process requirement is satisfied.
appointees. The investigative authority of the Ombudsman is defined in
(3) The penalty of dismissal from the service is Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770:
Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution need not justified as no acceptable explanation was given for the SEC. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the
apply to decisions rendered in administrative proceedings, non-declaration of the two expensive cars in his 2001 and Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and
as in the case a[t] bar. Said section applies only to 2002 SSAL. Pursuant to Section 11, paragraph (b) of R.A. duties:
decisions rendered in judicial proceedings. In fact, Article No. 6713, any violation of the law "proven in a proper (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by
VIII is titled "Judiciary," and all of its provisions have administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for any person, any act or omission of any public officer or
particular concern only with respect to the judicial branch of removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
government. Decisions of executive departments or no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has
administrative agencies are not obliged to meet the primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
requirements under Section 14, Article VIII. (4) Respondent who is a presidential appointee is Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary
under the disciplinary authority of the OP. Executive Order jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
The rights of parties in administrative proceedings are not No. 12 dated April 16, 2001 created the PAGC which was investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of
violated as long as the constitutional requirement of due granted the authority to investigate presidential and also such cases;
process has been satisfied. In the landmark case of Ang non-presidential employees "who may have acted in
Tibay v. CIR, the cardinal rights of parties in administrative conspiracy or may have been involved with a presidential Such jurisdiction over public officers and employees,
proceedings, as follows: appointee or ranking officer mentioned Jurisdiction is a however, is not exclusive.This power of investigation
matter of law. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the granted to the Ombudsman by the 1987 Constitution and
1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present instance of the parties but continues until the case is The Ombudsman Act is not exclusive but is shared with
one’s case and submit evidence in support terminated. other similarly authorized government agencies, such as
thereof. the PCGG and judges of municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts. The power to conduct
preliminary investigation on charges against public
employees and officials is likewise concurrently shared with
the Department of Justice.

Despite the passage of the Local Government Code in


1991, the Ombudsman retains concurrent jurisdiction with
the Office of the President and the local Sanggunians to
investigate complaints against local elective officials.

Motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

You might also like