Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME
Manila
of
the
Philippines
COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 134990
MANUEL
M.
LEYSON
JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, TIRSO ANTIPORDA,
Chairman, UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, and OSCAR A.
TORRALBA, President, CIIF Oil Mills, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On 7 February 1996 International Towage and Transport
Corporation (ITTC), a domestic corporation engaged in the
lighterage or shipping business, entered into a one (1)-year
contract with Legaspi Oil Company, Inc. (LEGASPI OIL),
Granexport Manufacturing Corporation (GRANEXPORT) and
United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNITED COCONUT),
comprising the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF)
companies, for the transport of coconut oil in bulk through MT
Transasia. The majority shareholdings of these CIIF
companies are owned by the United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB) as administrator of the CIIF. Under the terms of the
contract, either party could terminate the agreement provided a
three (3)-month advance notice was given to the other party.
However, in August 1996, or prior to the expiration of the
contract, the CIIF companies with their new President,
respondent Oscar A. Torralba, terminated the contract without
the requisite advance notice. The CIIF companies engaged the
services of another vessel, MT Marilag, operated by
Southwest Maritime Corporation.
On 11 March 1997 petitioner Manuel M. Leyson Jr.,
Executive Vice President of ITTC, filed with public
respondent Office of the Ombudsman a grievance case against
respondent Oscar A. Torralba. The following is a summary of
the irregularities and corrupt practices allegedly committed by
respondent Torralba: (a) breach of contract - unilateral
cancellation of valid and existing contract; (b) bad faith falsification of documents and reports to stop the operation of
MT Transasia; (c) manipulation - influenced their insurance to
disqualify MT Transasia; (d) unreasonable denial of
requirement imposed; (e) double standards and inconsistent in
favor of MT Marilag; (f) engaged and entered into a contract
with Southwest Maritime Corp. which is not the owner of MT
Marilag, where liabilities were waived and whose paid-up
capital is only P250,000.00; and, (g) overpricing in the freight
rate causing losses of millions of pesos to Cocochem.1
On 2 January 1998 petitioner charged respondent Tirso
Antiporda, Chairman of UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, and
respondent Oscar A. Torralba with violation of The Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act also before the Ombudsman
the
the
he
the
essential
government
or
government-related
functions, as the marketing arm of the PNOC to assist
the latter in selling and distributing oil and petroleum
products to assure and maintain an adequate and
stable domestic supply.
But these jurisprudential rules invoked by petitioner in support
of his claim that the CIIF companies are government owned
and/or controlled corporations are incomplete without
resorting to the definition of "government owned or controlled
corporation" contained in par. (13), Sec. 2, Introductory
Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, i. e., any
agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested
with functions relating to public needs whether governmental
or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government
directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or,
where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the
extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock. The
definition mentions three (3) requisites, namely, first, any
agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation; second,
vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature; and, third, owned by
the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock
corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of
its capital stock.
In the present case, all three (3) corporations comprising the
CIIF companies were organized as stock corporations.1wphi1
The UCPB-CIIF owns 44.10% of the shares of LEGASPI
OIL, 91.24% of the shares of GRANEXPORT, and 92.85% of
the shares of UNITED COCONUT. 15 Obviously, the below
51% shares of stock in LEGASPI OIL removes this firm from
the definition of a government owned or controlled
corporation. Our concern has thus been limited to
GRANEXPORT and UNITED COCONUT as we go back to
the second requisite. Unfortunately, it is in this regard that
petitioner failed to substantiate his contentions. There is no
showing that GRANEXPORT and/or UNITED COCONUT
was vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature unlike PETROPHIL in
Quimpo. The Court thus concludes that the CIIF companies
are, as found by public respondent, private corporations not
within the scope of its jurisdiction.
With the foregoing conclusion, we find it unnecessary to
resolve the other issues raised by petitioner.
A brief note on private respondents' charge of forum shopping.
Executive Secretary v. Gordon 16 is instructive that forum
shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable
judgment. It is readily apparent that the present charge will not
prosper because the cause of action herein, i. e., violation of
The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, is different from the
cause of action in the case pending before the trial court which
is collection of a sum of money plus damages.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution
of public respondent Office of the Ombudsman of 30 January
of
the
Philippines
COURT
FIRST DIVISION
The Ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals
G.R. No. 141658
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the
Decision2 of 7 January 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 36816. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
Decision3 of 5 January 1995 of the Court of Tax Appeals
("CTA") in CTA Cases Nos. 2514, 2515 and 2516. The CTA
ordered the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("petitioner")
to refund a total of P29,575.02 to respondent companies
("respondents").
Antecedent Facts
The same rule has been applied to banks.
Respondents are domestic corporations licensed to transact
insurance business in the country. From August 1971 to
September 1972, respondents paid the Bureau of Internal
Revenue under protest the 3% tax imposed on lending
investors by Section 195-A4 of Commonwealth Act No. 466
("CA 466"), as amended by Republic Act No. 6110 ("RA
6110") and other laws. CA 466 was the National Internal
Revenue Code ("NIRC") applicable at the time.
Respondents paid the following amounts: P7,985.25 from
Philippine American ("PHILAM") Accident Insurance
Company; P7,047.80 from PHILAM Assurance Company;
and P14,541.97 from PHILAM General Insurance Company.
These amounts represented 3% of each companys interest
income from mortgage and other loans. Respondents also paid
the taxes required of insurance companies under CA 466.
On 31 January 1973, respondents sent a letter-claim to
petitioner seeking a refund of the taxes paid under protest.
Whether
Insurance
Taxable as Lending Investors
Companies
are
of
under
CA
Include
466
Lending
Does
Insurance
are
Mortgage
are
Part
and
Investment
of
the
of
and
Treatment
Companies
of
in
CA
466
is
Lending
Not
Court
to
the
Accords
Factual
Great
Findings
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
G.R. No. 83578 March 16, 1989
SARMIENTO, J.:
The petitioner, the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task
Force, the President's arm assigned to investigate and
prosecute so-called "dollar salting" activities in the country
(per Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 2002), asks the Court to hold as null and void two
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated September 24,
1987 1 and May 20, 1988, 2 reversing its Decision, dated
October 24, 1986. 3 The Decision set aside an Order, dated
April 16, 1985, of the Regional Trial Court, 4 as well as its
Order, dated August 21, 1985. The Resolution, dated
September 24, 1987 disposed of, and granted, the private
respondent Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc.'s motion for
reconsideration of the October 24, 1986 Decision; the
Resolution dated May 20, 1988, in turn, denied the petitioner's
own motion for reconsideration.
The facts are not in controversy. We quote:
On March 12, 1985, State Prosecutor Jose B.
Rosales, who is assigned with the
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force
hereinafter referred to as PADS Task Force
for purposes of convenience, issued search
warrants Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and
161 against the petitioners Karamfil ImportExport Co., Inc., P & B Enterprises Co.,
Inc., Philippine Veterans Corporation,
Philippine
Veterans
Development
Corporation,
Philippine
Construction
Development Corporation, Philippine Lauan
Industries
Corporation,
Inter-trade
Development (Alvin Aquino), Amelili U.
It will not do to say that the fact that the Presidential Task
Force has been empowered to issue warrants of arrest, search,
and seizure, makes it, ergo, a "semi-court". Precisely, it is the
objection interposed by the private respondent, whether or not
it can under the 1973 Charter, issue such kinds of processes.
It must be observed that under the present Constitution, the
powers of arrest and search are exclusive upon judges. 35 To
that extent, the case has become moot and academic.
Nevertheless, since the question has been specifically put to
the Court, we find it unavoidable to resolve it as the final
arbiter of legal controversies, pursuant to the provisions of the
1973 Constitution during whose regime the case was
commenced.
Since the 1973 Constitution took force and effect and until it
was so unceremoniously discarded in 1986, its provisions
conferring the power to issue arrest and search warrants upon
an officer, other than a judge, by fiat of legislation have been
at best controversial. In Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 36 a 1975
decision, this Court ruled that a fiscal has no authority to issue
search warrants, but held in the same vein that, by virtue of the
responsible officer" clause of the 1973 Bill of Rights, "any
lawful officer authorized by law can issue a search warrant or
warrant of arrest.37 Authorities, however, have continued to
express reservations whether or not fiscals may, by statute, be
given such a power. 38
Less than a year later, we promulgated Collector of Customs v.
Villaluz, 39 in which we categorically averred: Until now only
the judge can issue the warrant of arrest." 40 "No law or
presidential decree has been enacted or promulgated vesting
the same authority in a particular responsible officer ." 41
Apparently, Villaluz had settled the debate, but the same
question persisted following this Courts subsequent rulings
upholding the President's alleged emergency arrest powers .42
[Mr. Justice Hugo Gutierrez would hold, however, that a
Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) is (was) not a species
of "arrest" in its technical sense, and that the (deposed) Chief
Executive, in issuing one, does not do so in his capacity as a
"responsible officer" under the 1973 Charter, but rather, as
of
the
Philippines
COURT
May 3, 2006
May 3, 2006
NIEZ
CACHO-OLIVARES
AND
TRIBUNE
PUBLISHING
CO.,
INC.,
Petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA AND
HONORABLE DIRECTOR GENERAL ARTURO C.
LOMIBAO, Respondents.
May 3, 2006
x-------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 171485
May 3, 2006
May 3, 2006
May 3, 2006
LOREN
B.
LEGARDA,
Petitioner,
vs.
GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
IN
HER
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-INCHIEF; ARTURO LOMIBAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR-GENERAL
OF
THE
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE (PNP); GENEROSO SENGA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP); AND
EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, Respondents.
DECISION
x-------------------------------------x
May 3, 2006
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
All powers need some restraint; practical adjustments rather
than rigid formula are necessary.1 Superior strength the use
of force cannot make wrongs into rights. In this regard, the
courts should be vigilant in safeguarding the constitutional
rights of the citizens, specifically their liberty.
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganibans philosophy of liberty is
thus most relevant. He said: "In cases involving liberty, the
scales of justice should weigh heavily against government
and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized,
the dispossessed and the weak." Laws and actions that
restrict fundamental rights come to the courts "with a heavy
presumption against their constitutional validity." 2
WHEREAS,
the
activities
above-described,
their
consequences, ramifications and collateral effects constitute a
clear and present danger to the safety and the integrity of the
Philippine State and of the Filipino people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, by virtue of the powers vested in me under the
Constitution as President of the Republic of the Philippines,
and Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of the Philippines,
and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1017 dated February 24,
2006, do hereby call upon the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), to prevent
and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the
country;
I hereby direct the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Chief of
the PNP, as well as the officers and men of the AFP and PNP,
to immediately carry out the necessary and appropriate
actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of
terrorism and lawless violence.
On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of a
state of national emergency and after all these petitions had
been filed, the President lifted PP 1017. She issued
Proclamation No. 1021 which reads:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18, Article VII and Section
17, Article XII of the Constitution, Proclamation No. 1017
dated February 24, 2006, was issued declaring a state of
national emergency;
WHEREAS, by virtue of General Order No.5 and No.6 dated
February 24, 2006, which were issued on the basis of
Proclamation No. 1017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), were directed
to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent
and suppress all form of lawless violence as well as any act of
rebellion and to undertake such action as may be necessary;
WHEREAS, the AFP and PNP have effectively prevented,
suppressed and quelled the acts lawless violence and rebellion;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by
virtue of the powers vested in me by law, hereby declare that
the state of national emergency has ceased to exist.
In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017 and G.O.
No. 5, respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the
executive issuances was the conspiracy among some military
officers, leftist insurgents of the New Peoples Army (NPA),
and some members of the political opposition in a plot to
unseat or assassinate President Arroyo.4 They considered the
aim to oust or assassinate the President and take-over the
reigns of government as a clear and present danger.
Under the law they would seem to be, if they were illegally
seized, I think and I know, Your Honor, and these are
inadmissible for any purpose.155
JUSTICE CALLEJO:
You made quite a mouthful of admission when you said that
the policemen, when inspected the Tribune for the purpose of
gathering evidence and you admitted that the policemen were
able to get the clippings. Is that not in admission of the
admissibility of these clippings that were taken from the
Tribune?
SOLICITOR GENERAL BENIPAYO:
xxxxxxxxx
As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business
and printing offices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We
Forum" newspapers. As a consequence of the search and
seizure, these premises were padlocked and sealed, with the
further result that the printing and publication of said
newspapers were discontinued.
Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or
censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press
guaranteed under the fundamental law, and constitutes a
virtual denial of petitioners' freedom to express themselves
in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to a
democratic framework where a free, alert and even
militant press is essential for the political enlightenment
and growth of the citizenry.
While admittedly, the Daily Tribune was not padlocked and
sealed like the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum"
newspapers in the above case, yet it cannot be denied that the
CIDG operatives exceeded their enforcement duties. The
search and seizure of materials for publication, the stationing
of policemen in the vicinity of the The Daily Tribune offices,
and the arrogant warning of government officials to media, are
plain censorship. It is that officious functionary of the
repressive government who tells the citizen that he may speak
only if allowed to do so, and no more and no less than what he
is permitted to say on pain of punishment should he be so rash
as to disobey.153 Undoubtedly, the The Daily Tribune was
subjected to these arbitrary intrusions because of its antigovernment sentiments. This Court cannot tolerate the blatant
disregard of a constitutional right even if it involves the most
defiant of our citizens. Freedom to comment on public affairs
is essential to the vitality of a representative democracy. It is
the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments
thereon. The motto should always be obsta principiis.154
Perhaps, the vital lesson that we must learn from the theorists
who studied the various competing political philosophies is
that, it is possible to grant government the authority to cope
with crises without surrendering the two vital principles of
constitutionalism: the maintenance of legal limits to
arbitrary power, and political responsibility of the
government to the governed.158
WHEREFORE, the Petitions are partly granted. The Court
rules that PP 1017 is CONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it
constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on
the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However,
the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce
laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees
promulgated
by
the
President,
are
declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, the provision in PP
1017 declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article
VII of the Constitution is CONSTITUTIONAL, but such
declaration does not authorize the President to take over
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public
interest without prior legislation.
G.O. No. 5 is CONSTITUTIONAL since it provides a
standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement PP
1017, i.e. whatever is "necessary and appropriate actions
and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence." Considering that "acts of terrorism" have not yet
been defined and made punishable by the Legislature, such
portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald
Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and
NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of
proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880;
the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior
restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the
Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for
publication
and
other
materials,
are
declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
No costs.
FACTS:
Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the
President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft
and corruption committed by third-level public officers and
employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories
during the previous administration, and to submit its finding
and recommendations to the President, Congress and the
Ombudsman. PTC has all the powers of an investigative body.
But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate,
arbitrate, resolve, settle, or render awards in disputes between
contending parties. All it can do is gather, collect and assess
evidence of graft and corruption and make recommendations.
It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite
people in contempt, much less order their arrest. Although it is
a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if
probable cause exists as to warrant the filing of an information
in our courts of law.
Petitioners asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and to
enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They argued
that:
(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the
power of the Congress to create a public office and
appropriate funds for its operation.
(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1
because the delegated authority of the President to structurally
reorganize the Office of the President to achieve economy,
simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to create
an entirely new public office which was hitherto inexistent
like the Truth Commission.
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the Constitution and statutes
when it vested the Truth Commission with quasi-judicial
powers duplicating, if not superseding, those of the Office of
the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the
DOJ created under the Administrative Code of 1987.
SO ORDERED.
G.R.
No.
192935
December
7,
2010
LOUIS
BAROK
C.
BIRAOGO
vs.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010
x - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R.
No.
193036
REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, REP. RODOLFO B. ALBANO,
JR., REP. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, and REP.
ORLANDO
B.
FUA,
SR.
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152845. August 5, 2003]
DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, FELY MADRIAGA, SHIRLY
TAGABAN, RICARDO SARANDI, SUSAN IMPERIAL,
BENJAMIN DEMDEM, RODOLFO DAGA, EDGARDO
BACLIG, GREGORIO LABAYAN, HILARIO JEREZ, and
MARIA
CORAZON
CUANANG,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, represented
by ANTONIO DE GUZMAN and PERLITA BAULA,
respondents.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
President Joseph Estrada issued on 30 September 1998
Executive Order No. 29, entitled Mandating the Streamlining
of the National Tobacco Administration (NTA), a
government agency under the Department of Agriculture. The
order was followed by another issuance, on 27 October 1998,
by President Estrada of Executive Order No. 36, amending
Executive Order No. 29, insofar as the new staffing pattern
was concerned, by increasing from four hundred (400) to not
exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) the positions affected
thereby. In compliance therewith, the NTA prepared and
adopted a new Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern
(OSSP) which, on 29 October 1998, was submitted to the
Office of the President.
On 11 November 1998, the rank and file employees of NTA
Batac, among whom included herein petitioners, filed a letterappeal with the Civil Service Commission and sought its
assistance in recalling the OSSP. On 04 December 1998, the
OSSP was approved by the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) subject to certain revisions. On even
date, the NTA created a placement committee to assist the
appointing authority in the selection and placement of
permanent personnel in the revised OSSP. The results of the
evaluation by the committee on the individual qualifications of
applicants to the positions in the new OSSP were then
disseminated and posted at the central and provincial offices
of the NTA.
On 10 June 1996, petitioners, all occupying different positions
at the NTA office in Batac, Ilocos Norte, received individual
notices of termination of their employment with the NTA
effective thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. Finding
themselves without any immediate relief from their dismissal
from the service, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order, with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte, and
prayed 1)
that a restraining order be immediately issued
enjoining the respondents from enforcing the notice of
termination addressed individually to the petitioners and/or
II.
III.
IV.
V.
3)
that, after trial on the merits, judgment be rendered
declaring the notice of termination of the petitioners illegal
and the reorganization null and void and ordering their
reinstatement with backwages, if applicable, commanding the
respondents to desist from further terminating their services,
and making the injunction permanent.1[1]
The RTC, on 09 September 2000, ordered the NTA to appoint
petitioners in the new OSSP to positions similar or comparable
to their respective former assignments.
A motion for
reconsideration filed by the NTA was denied by the trial court
in its order of 28 February 2001. Thereupon, the NTA filed an
appeal with the Court of Appeals, raising the following issues:
I.
II.
III.
Rules
on
Government Reorganization.
IV.
1.
The Court of Appeals decision upholding the
reorganization of the National Tobacco Administration sets a
dangerous precedent in that:
a)
A mere Executive Order issued by the Office of the
President and procured by a government functionary would
have the effect of a blanket authority to reorganize a bureau,
office or agency attached to the various executive
departments;
b)
The President of the Philippines would have the
plenary power to reorganize the entire government
Bureaucracy through the issuance of an Executive Order, an
administrative issuance without the benefit of due
deliberation, debate and discussion of members of both
chambers of the Congress of the Philippines;
c)
The right to security of tenure to a career position
created by law or statute would be defeated by the mere
adoption of an Organizational Structure and Staffing Pattern
issued pursuant to an Executive Order which is not a law and
could thus not abolish an office created by law;
2.
The case law on abolition of an office would be
disregarded, ignored and abandoned if the Court of Appeals
decision subject matter of this Petition would remain
undisturbed and untouched.
In other words, previous
doctrines and precedents of this Highest Court would in effect
be reversed and/or modified with the Court of Appeals
judgment, should it remain unchallenged.
3.
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 245 dated July 24,
1987 (Annex D, Petition), issued by the Revolutionary
government of former President Corazon Aquino, and the law
creating NTA, which provides that the governing body of
NTA is the Board of Directors, would be rendered
meaningless, ineffective and a dead letter law because the
challenged NTA reorganization which was erroneously upheld
by the Court of Appeals was adopted and implemented by
then NTA Administrator Antonio de Guzman without the
corresponding authority from the Board of Directors as
mandated therein. In brief, the reorganization is an ultra vires
act of the NTA Administrator.
4.
The challenged Executive Order No. 29 issued by
former President Joseph Estrada but unsigned by then
Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora would in effect be
erroneously upheld and given legal effect as to supersede,
amend and/or modify Executive Order No. 245, a law issued
during the Freedom Constitution of President Corazon
Aquino. In brief, a mere executive order would amend,
supersede and/or render ineffective a law or statute.5[5]
`x x x
xxx
xxx
`Another legal basis of E.O. No. 132 is Section 20, Book III of
E.O. No. 292 which states:
``Sec. 20. Residual Powers. Unless Congress provides
otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and
functions vested in the President which are provided for under
the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above or
which are not delegated by the President in accordance with
law.
`This provision speaks of such other powers vested in the
President under the law. What law then gives him the power
to reorganize? It is Presidential Decree No. 1772 which
amended Presidential Decree No. 1416. These decrees
expressly grant 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. The validity of these two
decrees are unquestionable. The 1987 Constitution clearly
provides that `all laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letter of instructions and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative until amended, repealed or revoked. So far, there is
yet no law amending or repealing said decrees.
xxx
x x x.
(2)
Transfer any function under the Office of the
President to any other Department or Agency as well as
transfer functions to the Office of the President from other
Departments and Agencies; and
(3)
Transfer any agency under the Office of the President
to any other department or agency as well as transfer agencies
to the Office of the President from other departments and
agencies.
The first sentence of the law is an express grant to the
President of a continuing authority to reorganize the
administrative structure of the Office of the President.
The succeeding numbered paragraphs are not in the nature of
provisos that unduly limit the aim and scope of the grant to the
President of the power to reorganize but are to be viewed in
consonance therewith. Section 31(1) of Executive Order No.
292 specifically refers to the Presidents power to restructure
the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper,
by abolishing, consolidating or merging units hereof or
transferring functions from one unit to another, while Section
31(2) and (3) concern executive offices outside the Office of
the President Proper allowing the President to transfer any
function under the Office of the President to any other
Department or Agency and vice-versa, and the transfer of any
agency under the Office of the President to any other
department or agency and vice-versa.14[14]
In the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor
transfer of offices, the assailed action is a mere reorganization
under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of
streamlining the NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy
and efficiency. It is an act well within the authority of
GR NO. 130584
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152845. August 5, 2003]
DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, FELY MADRIAGA, SHIRLY
TAGABAN, RICARDO SARANDI, SUSAN IMPERIAL,
BENJAMIN DEMDEM, RODOLFO DAGA, EDGARDO
BACLIG, GREGORIO LABAYAN, HILARIO JEREZ, and
MARIA
CORAZON
CUANANG,
petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, represented
by ANTONIO DE GUZMAN and PERLITA BAULA,
respondents.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
President Joseph Estrada issued on 30 September 1998
Executive Order No. 29, entitled Mandating the Streamlining
of the National Tobacco Administration (NTA), a
II.
III.
Rules
on
Government Reorganization.
IV.
II.
IV.
V.
c)
The right to security of tenure to a career position
created by law or statute would be defeated by the mere
adoption of an Organizational Structure and Staffing Pattern
issued pursuant to an Executive Order which is not a law and
could thus not abolish an office created by law;
2.
The case law on abolition of an office would be
disregarded, ignored and abandoned if the Court of Appeals
decision subject matter of this Petition would remain
undisturbed and untouched.
In other words, previous
doctrines and precedents of this Highest Court would in effect
be reversed and/or modified with the Court of Appeals
judgment, should it remain unchallenged.
3.
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 245 dated July 24,
1987 (Annex D, Petition), issued by the Revolutionary
government of former President Corazon Aquino, and the law
creating NTA, which provides that the governing body of
NTA is the Board of Directors, would be rendered
meaningless, ineffective and a dead letter law because the
challenged NTA reorganization which was erroneously upheld
by the Court of Appeals was adopted and implemented by
then NTA Administrator Antonio de Guzman without the
corresponding authority from the Board of Directors as
mandated therein. In brief, the reorganization is an ultra vires
act of the NTA Administrator.
4.
The challenged Executive Order No. 29 issued by
former President Joseph Estrada but unsigned by then
Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora would in effect be
erroneously upheld and given legal effect as to supersede,
amend and/or modify Executive Order No. 245, a law issued
during the Freedom Constitution of President Corazon
Aquino. In brief, a mere executive order would amend,
supersede and/or render ineffective a law or statute.21[5]
In order to allow the parties a full opportunity to ventilate their
views on the matter, the Court ultimately resolved to hear the
parties in oral argument. Essentially, the core question raised
by them is whether or not the President, through the issuance
of an executive order, can validly carry out the reorganization
of the NTA.
Notwithstanding the apparent procedural lapse on the part of
petitioner to implead the Office of the President as party
respondent pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3, of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure, 22[6] this Court resolved to rule on
the merits of the petition.
xxx
xxx
`Another legal basis of E.O. No. 132 is Section 20, Book III of
E.O. No. 292 which states:
``Sec. 20. Residual Powers. Unless Congress provides
otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and
functions vested in the President which are provided for under
the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above or
which are not delegated by the President in accordance with
law.
`This provision speaks of such other powers vested in the
President under the law. What law then gives him the power
to reorganize? It is Presidential Decree No. 1772 which
amended Presidential Decree No. 1416. These decrees
expressly grant 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. The validity of these two
decrees are unquestionable. The 1987 Constitution clearly
provides that `all laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letter of instructions and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative until amended, repealed or revoked. So far, there is
yet no law amending or repealing said decrees.
Now, let us take a look at the assailed executive order.
In the whereas clause of E.O. No. 191, former President
Estrada anchored his authority to deactivate EIIB on Section
77 of Republic Act 8745 (FY 1999 General Appropriations
Act), a provision similar to Section 62 of R.A. 7645 quoted in
Larin, thus:
`Sec. 77. Organized Changes. Unless otherwise provided
by law or directed by the President of the Philippines, no
changes in key positions or organizational units in any
department or agency shall be authorized in their respective
organizational structures and funded from appropriations
provided by this Act.
x x x
xxx
x x x.
of
the
Philippines
COURT
EN BANC
PUNO, J.:
The petitions at bar challenge the constitutionality of Republic
Act No. 8180 entitled "An Act Deregulating the Downstream
Oil Industry and For Other Purposes". 1 R.A. No. 8180 ends
twenty six (26) years of government regulation of the
downstream oil industry. Few cases carry a surpassing
Third, section 15 of R.A. No. 8180 and E.O. No. 392 allow the
formation of a de facto cartel among the three existing oil
companies Petron, Caltex and Shell in violation of the
constitutional prohibition against monopolies, combinations in
restraint of trade and unfair competition.
Respondents, on the other hand, fervently defend the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 8180 and E.O. No. 392. In
addition, respondents contend that the issues raised by the
petitions are not justiciable as they pertain to the wisdom of
the law. Respondents further aver that petitioners have no
locus standi as they did not sustain nor will they sustain direct
injury as a result of the implementation of R.A. No. 8180.
The petitions were heard by the Court on September 30, 1997.
On October 7, 1997, the Court ordered the private respondents
oil companies "to maintain the status quo and to cease and
desist from increasing the prices of gasoline and other
petroleum fuel products for a period of thirty (30) days . . .
subject to further orders as conditions may warrant."
We shall now resolve the petitions on the merit. The petitions
raise procedural and substantive issues bearing on the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 8180 and E.O. No. 392. The
procedural issues are: (1) whether or not the petitions raise a
justiciable controversy, and (2) whether or not the petitioners
have the standing to assail the validity of the subject law and
executive order. The substantive issues are: (1) whether or not
section 5 (b) violates the one title one subject requirement
of the Constitution; (2) whether or not the same section
violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution; (3)
whether or not section 15 violates the constitutional