1 GR 142801-802 Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary

FACTS:

-Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) by virtue of Cory Aquino’s EO 127, it was designatedto perform functions primarily to gather information and pieces of evidence on illegal activities, such as, butnot limited to the ff:

a. Economic sabotageb. Smugglingc. Tax evasiond. Dollar salting

-By virtue of Memorandum Order 225, EIIB was assigned as the agency of primary responsibility for ANTI-SMUGGLING OPERATIONS

-11 years after, Erap issued EO 191 “Deactivation of the EIIB” because of the ff:

a. The designated functions of EIIB are also performed by other agencies

b. There is a need to monitor the overlapping functions

-Erap issued EO 196 creating the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force “Aduana”

-Erap also issued EO 223, EIIB employees were separated from service pursuant to the reorganization hence,the case.

ISSUES:

(1)WON EO Nos. 191 and 223 are unconstitutional (Sec. 2(3) Art. IX-B) and do these amount to grave abuse of discretion Sec. 2 (3) Art. IX- B. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.

(2) WON EO Nos. 191 and 223 are considered reorganization of the EIIB and if these were done in good faith

(3) WON the President has the authority to abolish EIIB1

HELD/ RATIO:

1. The petitioners’ right to security of tenure is not violated. Quoting J. Sarmiento:

1 One of the issues raised by the Sol. Gen. is the distinction between abolish and deactivate , but the court ruled that either way, the executive department has the authority to do both.

Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in “good faith” if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall.

There is no such thing as an absolute right to hold office. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.

(2) Yes, it is considered as reorganization. It is valid so long as it is done in GOOD FAITH. It is done in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. RA 6656 provides for 5 circumstances of BAD FAITH:

1. where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned;

2. where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created;

3. where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit;

4. where there is a classification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the original offices, and

5. where the removal violates the order of separation

-Even though Aduana was established after the deactivation of EIIB, it was done for economy.

3 Justifications:

1. No employment was made for the task force, they are employees of other existing agencies.2. The idea is to encourage and utilize personnel, facilities and resources instead of maintaining an

independent office, which is burdensome for the government3. Based on the budget appropriation, it was evident that the intent was to lessen the expenses of

EIIB

-Task Force Aduana have additional powers that EIIB previously do not possess, i.e. power to effect searches, seizures and arrests. Furthermore, it has the authority to investigate cases involving ill-gotten wealth.

(3) Yes, the President has the authority to do so. Sec. 48 of RA 7645 provides:

Scaling Down and Phase Out of Activities of Agencies Within the Executive Branch –

The heads of departments, bureaus and offices and agencies are hereby directed to identify their respective activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of public services and which may be

scaled down, phased out or abolished, subject to civil service rules and regulations. X X X. Actual scaling down, phasing out or abolition of the activities shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the President.

2 280 SCRA 713 Larin v. Executive Secretary

FACTS:

The President issued E.O. No. 132 which mandates for the streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Under said order, some positions and functions are either abolished, renamed, decentralized or transferred to other offices, while other offices are also created. The Excise Tax Service, of which the petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner, was one of those offices that was abolished. Petitioner assailed the legality of EO No. 132 claiming that he was removed as a result of the reorganization made in the BIR pursuant to E.O. No. 132. He claimed that there is yet no law enacted by Congress which authorizes the reorganization by the Executive Department of executive agencies, particularly the BIR.

ISSUE: Whether or not the President has the power to reorganize the BIR or to issue the questioned EO No.132.

HELD: YES. Section 48 of R.A. 7645 clearly mentions the acts of "scaling down, phasing out and abolition" of offices only and does not cover the creation of offices or transfer of functions. Nevertheless, the act of creating and decentralizing is included in the subsequent provision of Section 62 which shows that the President is authorized to effect organizational charges including the creation of offices in the department or agency concerned. Presidential Decree No. 1772 which amended Presidential Decree No. 1416 expressly grants the President of the Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the national government, which includes the power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify functions, services and activities and to standardize salaries and materials

3 GR 192935 Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission

FACTS:

The petitioners raised in court that EO No. 1, which created the Truth Commission, should be declared unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. Petitioners argue that EO NO. 1 violates the separation of powers as it arrogates the power of congress to create public office and appropriate funds for its operation.

The respondent on the other hand, contested that EO No. 1 did not arrogate the power of the congress to create public office because the President’s Executive power and power of control includes the inherent power to conduct investigations to ensure laws are faithfully executed. More so, it does not violate the principle of separation of powers as alleged by the petitioners. They strongly argue that the said EO is valid and constitutional.

Issue: Does control power allow the President to create the Truth Commission?

Ruling: The power of control is entirely different from the power to create public offices. Majority of members of the Supreme Court also rejected the OSG’s claim that the EO finds basis under Section 31 of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the President to restructure the office of the President. Clearly, “restructure” under the said provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation or abolition of offices by reason of economy or redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision.

The Court held that the authority of the President to conduct investigations and to create bodies to execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority. The President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the law. the purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.

4 GR 193036 Lagman v Ochoa

Facts: The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior to the historic May 2010 elections, when then Senator Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his staunch condemnation of graft and corruption with his slogan, "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap." The Filipino people, convinced of his sincerity and of his ability to carry out this noble objective, catapulted the good senator to the presidency.

The first case is G.R. No. 192935, a special civil action for prohibition instituted by petitioner Louis Biraogo (Biraogo) in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer. Biraogo assails Executive Order No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to appropriate funds therefor.

The second case, G.R. No. 193036, is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Edcel C. Lagman, Rodolfo B. Albano Jr., Simeon A. Datumanong, and Orlando B. Fua, Sr. (petitioners-legislators) as incumbent members of the House of Representatives.

Thus, at the dawn of his administration, the President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (Truth Commission).

Issues:

1. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions;

2. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;

3. Whether or not Executive Order No. 1 violates the equal protection clause; and

4. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief.

Held:

Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission

The Chief Executive’s power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents belong, the President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry.

Power of the Truth Commission to Investigate

The distinction between the power to investigate and the power to adjudicate was delineated by the Court in Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights.59 Thus:

The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation" being in turn described as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. 257; x x an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of facts concerning a certain matter or matters."

In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. To determine finally. Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn. x x. Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment."

Finally, nowhere in Executive Order No. 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. Much like its predecessors, the Davide Commission, the Feliciano Commission and the Zenarosa Commission, its findings would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. And being so, the Ombudsman and the DOJ have a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to reject the recommendation. These offices, therefore, are not deprived of their mandated duties but will instead be aided by the reports of the PTC for possible indictments for violations of graft laws.

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause

The petitioners assail Executive Order No. 1 because it is violative of this constitutional safeguard. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the "previous administration" as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility." Thus, in order to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.

The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken.

Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration"only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order.

Decision

The issue that seems to take center stage at present is - whether or not the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is exercising undue interference. Is the Highest Tribunal, which is expected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of violating fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this issue has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it continually be accused of being a hindrance to the nation’s thrust to progress.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from carrying out the provisions of Executive Order No. 1.

SO ORDERED.