Banda V Ermita PDF

Banda v Ermita G.R. No.
166620 April 20, 2010

Petition for certiorari and prohibition Ponente: Justice LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
_______________________________________________________
Facts:
On Oct 25 2004 PGMA issued EO 378
EO 378 amended EO 285 which created the National Printing Office under President Cory
Aquino
Removed exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over printing requirements of the government
agencies and instruments
It shall compete with the private sector except in the printing of election paraphernalia
Limited its appropriation in the GAA to its OWN income
Petitioners, filed a class suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all their co employees ant the
NPO
Claim:
EO 378 is unconstitutional since it is beyond the executive powers of PGMA to amend the
Executive Order of President Aquino, since President Aquino exercised legislative powers at
that time (freedom constitution) Therefore only congress can amend EO 285 through legislation.
EO 378 violates their security of tenure, paves the way for the gradual abolition of the NPO
Issue:
Procedural
WoN the petition is a class suit.
Substantive
WoN Eo 378 is constitutional.
Held:
WoN the petition is a class suit.
NO. Not a class suit
A class suit depends on the attending facts
1. A subject matter of common interest 2. Existence of a class and number of persons in the
alleged class (so the court an determine
whether the numbers are so numerous that it would be impractical to bring them all to court)
To determine fair and adequate representation of the class
a. Whether the interest if the named party is co extensive with the interest of the other members
of the class b. The proportion of those made a party to the total members of the class c. Any
other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class
The petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be affected, it was the
SolGen who pointed out that there were 549 employees in the NPO, and there were originally
64 petitioners, however,
32 executed affidavits of desistance Only 20 petitioners subscribed before the notary public
Therefore, there were only 20 petitioners instituted in the present case
Not a considerable proportional representation to 549, mot a representative number
The NPO Workers Association, through its president in a manifestation of desistance expressed
its opposition to the filing of the instant petition in any court
Shows an apparent conflict between petitioners interest and whom they claim to represent
WoN EO 378 is constitutional.
Yes. EO 378 is constitutional
It is a well-settled principle in jurisprudence that the President has the power to reorganize the
offices and agencies in the executive department in line with the President’s constitutionally
granted power of control over executive offices and by virtue of previous delegation of the
legislative power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes.
Section 17 Article VII 1987 Constitution
“The president shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices”
Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III Administrative Code of 1987
Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. – The President, subject
to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,
shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the
President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the
immediate Offices, the President Special Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Staff
Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions
from one unit to another;
(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 or agencies.
The president is authorize zed to effect organizational changes including the creation of offices
in the department or agency concerned. The court has also previously rules that the President
may direct reorganization if government entities under the executive department. The law allows
the president to abolish, consolidate, merge units or transfer the functions of such from the
Office of the President to other Departments or Agencies and vice versa.
The present EO is neither an abolition nor a transfer, it is merely a reorganization under the
general provisions of law as the NPO is under the Office of the President.
Furthermore the GAA of the year EO 378 was enacted allowed the President to effect a wide
variety or organizational changes. Section 78 of it states:
That actual streamlining and productivity improvements in agency organization and operations,
as authorized by the President of the Philippines for the purpose, including the utilization of
savings generated from such activities, shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations to
be issued by the DBM, upon consultation with the Presidential Committee on Effective
Governance: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That in the implementation of
organizations/reorganizations, or specific changes in agency structure, functions and operations
as a result of institutional strengthening or as mandated by law, the appropriation, including the
functions, projects, purposes and activities of agencies concerned may be realigned as may be
necessary: PROVIDED, FINALLY, That any unexpended balances or savings in appropriations
may be made available for payment of retirement gratuities and separation benefits to affected
personnel, as authorized under existing laws.
This allows the president to reorganize offices funded by the GAA.
Limiting NPO to its own income is consistent with the state policy which encourages
competitiveness by extending equal opportunity to the private contracting parties. Re
organizations in this jurisdiction are valid provided they are done “in good faith”
Security of tenure is not a hindrance to such reorganization so long as the purpose is the make
the bureaucracy more efficient and economical. If such reorganization is done for political
reasons or to purposely defeat security of tenure, then it is only under such that it is done in bad
faith and therefore void.
Petitioners failed to allege much less prove, that such EO was tainted with bad faith. He who
alleges unconstitutionality of the law has the burden of proof. There is also no absolute right to
hold office, except those who hold constitutional offices.

Banda V Ermita PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Banda V Ermita PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Banda V Ermita PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Banda v Ermita G.R. No.

166620 April 20, 2010

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.