Administrative & Election Law With Public Officers: Group 1
Administrative & Election Law With Public Officers: Group 1
Administrative & Election Law With Public Officers: Group 1
Group 1
Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July
23, 1998
FACTS :
Planas then contends that the respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate her
since it violates Article VII, Sec. 11 of the 1935 Constitution. She also said that
the President cannot delegate his power to any other person.
ISSUE:
Yes the President can delegate his power, in this case Sec. Vargas serves as an
alter ego of the President being the Commissioner of Civil Service. One of the
powers granted to the Executive Branch is to investigate.
- power to exercise general supervision over all local governments and take
care the laws to be faithfully executed, and authorizes him to order an
investigation of the act or conduct of any public servants.
Occena v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. L-56350,
April 2, 1981
FACT :
In the 1976 amendment it states that the Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have
the same powers and its members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, reights, privileges, and disqualification as the interim National
Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the member thereof
Claudio, Angelie B.
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
112745, October 16, 1997
Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies
Petitioner Aquilino T. Larin seeks to assail the legality of Executive Order No. 132, which
mandates for the streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
He also claimed that the reorganization sought to be affected by the E.O. 132 is tainted in bad
faith in violation of the Section 2 or R.A. 6656 also known as the Act Protecting the Security of
Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government
Reorganization.
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997
ISSUE:
Does the President have the power to reorganize the BIR or to issue the questioned Executive Order
No. 132?
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997
The president has the power to reorganize under 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.
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997
However, the court did not consider the Executive Order No. 127 as the legal basis for the
reorganization of the BIR.
● The said Executive Order should be related to the paragraph 2 of Section 11 of the Republic
Act No. 6656, which provides that in cases of the 1987 reorganization of the executive branch,
all authorized agencies and departments by executive orders promulgated by the President to
reorganize only have ninety days to implement their respective organization plans
Hence, the Executive Order No. 127, being part of the 1987 re-organization became stale as the
ninety-day period had expired. It cannot be used as a proper legal basis for reorganization.
Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies
● Section 2 of R. A. No. 6656 provides that there is bad faith when there is a significant increase
in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned,
and when an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is
created.
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997
The creation of services and divisions in the BIR resulting to a significant increase in the number of
positions in the said bureau.
The court ruled to reinstate Petitioner Larin to his position as Assistant Commissioner without loss
of Seniority rights and entitlement to full back wages from the time of separation.
Commission on Human Rights Employees
Association
v.
Commission on Human Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
Republic Act No. 8522, the General Appropriations Act of 1998, provided for the Special Provisions
Applicable to All Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy.
Using the Special Provisions as basis, the CHR promulgated a resolution adopting an upgrading and
reclassification scheme among selected positions in the Commission, as well as determination of
salaries and make adjustments in the personnel services itemization, including the transfer of item or
creation of new positions.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
The CHR forwarded the staffing modification scheme to the DBM for the latter’s approval but the
DBM Secretary Benjamin Diokno denied the request.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the pronouncement of CSC-Central Office which upheld the validity
of the upgrading, retitling and reclassification scheme in the CHR on the group that the said action
is within the scope of the CHR’s fiscal autonomy.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
ISSUE:
Can the Commission on Human Rights validly implement an upgrading, reclassification, creation
and collapsing of plantilla positions in the Commission without the prior approval of the
Department of Budget and Management?
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the Commission of Human Rights is exempt from the Salary
Standardization Law is flawed since it covers the entire government offices.
Salary Standardization Law provides that the DBM shall establish a unified Compensation and
Position Classification System.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
The Administrative Code of 1987 mandated the DBM to assist the President.
The DBM’s authority is hereby delegated by the Congress through the Salary Standardization Law,
as part of the checks and balances of the government, as well as the Administrative Code.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
The Court of Appeals’ decision was based on the mistaken premise that the CHR is a Constitutional
Commission.
There is no legal basis that supports the contention that CHR possesses fiscal autonomy.
The Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code only mentions the CSC,
Commission of Elections and Commission on Audit as the Constitutional Commissions, which
possesses right to fiscal autonomy.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
Being part of the offices that has the right to fiscal independence does not vest the agency the
authority to reclassify, upgrade and create positions without the approval of the DBM.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, G.R. No.
192935, Dec. 7, 2010
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
Two consolidated cases which assailed the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1,
dated July 30, 2010 entitled “Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.
● Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the
President
● Tasked to submit findings and recommendation to the President, Congress, and the
Ombudsman,
● Not a quasi-judicial body.
● Cannot impose criminal, civil, or administrative penalties or sanctions.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
Petitioners argue that the creation of public office lies within the authority of the Congress and not
with the Executive Branch of government. Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 grants
the President the authority to reorganize his office, but not permit the creation of public office.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
ISSUE
Does the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission fall within the power of the President to
reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code?
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
The court found that the creation of PTC was justified under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, which imposes the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
The president is authorized to create bodies that would aid him in his power to conduct
investigations, which was done to ensure the faithful execution of laws.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
Consequently, one of the recognized constitutionally mandated duty of the President is the power to
create ad hoc committees. Since there is an obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws
have been faithfully executed.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010
However, the Court declared the Executive Order No. 1 as unconstitutional for being violative of the
Equal Protection Clause. Said order creates an arbitrary classification since its subject of
investigation was the corrupt practices only during the Past Administration of Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, and not including the other past administrations that was similarly situated.
Control over
Administrative Agencies
Tuazon, Daniel M.
Carpio v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 96409, February 14, 1992
The petitioner, Antonio Carpio, filed a petition now at bar, assailing the
constitutionality of the RA 6975. AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
FACTS:
1. He said that the Act is unconstitutional as the PNP was placed under the
supervision of DILG.
2. The petitioner alleged the said Act limits the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) of its power of control over the Philippine National Police
(PNP) by vesting different powers to local executives and officials
FACTS:
In this case, it is just that both NAPOLCOM and PNP are placed under the reorganized
Department of Interior and Local Government. The court explained that, The purpose of the
delegation is to strengthen a system of coordination and cooperation among the law
enforcement and public safety agencies created under the assailed Act.
RULING:
The national police force does not fall under the Commander-in-Chief powers of
the President. This is necessarily so since the police force, not being integrated
with the military, is not a part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a
civilian agency of the government, it properly comes within, and is subject to,
the exercise by the President of the power of executive control..
RULING:
In the end, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Moran v. Office of the President, G.R.
No. 192957, September 29, 2014
The late Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed with the Consumer Arbitration Office
(CAO) a verified complaint against private respondent PGA Cars, Inc. pursuant
to the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7394 (RA 7394), otherwise known
as the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The complaint alleged that the private
respondent should be held liable for the product imperfections of a BMW car
which it sold to complainant.
1. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the private respondent but was
denied by the CAO
2. The case was then appealed to DTI who furthered dismissed the appeal
3. The case was appealed to the Office of the President (OP) who then
granted the appeal and reversed the decision of DTI and holding the private
respondent PGA Cars, Inc. not liable for the alleged accusations against it.
FACTS:
Complainant filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and alleged lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the OP for ruling on cases involving a violation of RA
7394. However, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that it
was a wrong mode of appeal
Further the OP contends that the President’s power of control over the executive
departments grants him the power to amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of
the department secretaries.
ISSUE:
Under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Const., the power of control over all executive
departments was granted to the President. This includes the power of control to
amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of the department secretaries. However, it is
limited and subjected to certain exceptions.
RULING:
The Court held in this case, citing Sec. 1 of AO No. 18, “a decision or order issued
by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President
when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal.”
RULING:
In this case, the special law, RA 7394 and its provisions, expressly provided for
immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition
for certiorari with the "proper court" (Court of Appeals).
In filing a petition for certiorari before the CA raising the issue of the OP’s lack of
jurisdiction, complainant Moran, thus availed of the proper remedy.
Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No.
109406, September 11, 1998
On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 which granted each official
and employee of the government the productivity incentive benefits in a maximum
amount equivalent to 30% of the employee’s one month basic salary but which
amount not be less than P2,000.00. Said AO provided that the productivity
incentive benefits shall be granted only for the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of
agencies, including government boards of government-owned or controlled
corporations and financial institutions, are strictly prohibited from granting
productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 and future years pending the
result of a comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres.
FACTS:
The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government departments and
agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres.
Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992
in the maximum amount of P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO 268,
enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approval of the President.
Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices and agencies which authorized payment of
productivity incentive bonus for the year 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause
the refund of the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies
of the government concerned caused the deduction from petitioners’ salaries or allowances
of the amounts needed to cover the alleged overpayments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Administrative Orders (AO. 29 and AO. 268) were issued in
the valid exercise of presidential control over the executive departments
RULING:
The President is the head of the government. Governmental power and authority
are exercised and implemented through him. His power includes the control of
executive departments as provided under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution.
When the President issued AO. 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits,
enjoining heads of government agencies from granting incentive benefits without
approval from him and directing the refund of the excess over the prescribed
amount, the President was just exercising his power of control over executive
departments.
RULING:
The Pres. was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the
heads of the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres., thereby
resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.
RULING:
The Pres. was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the
heads of the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres., thereby
resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: