Tondo Medical v.

Court of Appeals
527 SCRA 746; July 17, 2007
Topic: General Considerations
Facts: In 1999, the DOH launched the HSRA
(Health Sector Reform Agenda), a reform agenda
developed by the HSRA Technical Working
Group.
Petitioners alleged that the implementation of the
reforms had resulted in making free medicine and
free medical services inaccessible to economically
disadvantaged Filipinos. Thus, they alleged that
the HSRA is void for being in violation of the
following constitutional provisions: ART. III,
SEC. 1; ART II, SECS. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and
18; ART XV, SECS. 1 and 3.; ART. XIII, SECS.
11 and 14.
Furthermore, they argued that E.O. No. 102
should be enacted by Congress in the exercise of
its legislative function and therefore void, having
been issued in excess of the Presidents authority.
Issue:
I.

II.

Whether or not the HRSA is void for

violating the provisions of the
constitution
Whether or not Presidents enactment of
E.O. No. 102 is in excess of his authority

office to achieve simplicity, economy and

efficiency. The President may, by executive or
administrative order, direct the reorganization of
government entities under the Executive
Department.

BCDA v. COA
508 SCRA 295; February 26, 2009
Topic: General Considerations
Facts: In 1992, Congress approved Republic Act
(RA) No. 7227 creating the Bases Conversion and
Development Authority (BCDA). The BCDA
Board of Directors (Board) shall exercise the
adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme
at least equivalent to that of the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas (BSP).
In 1996, the Board adopted a new compensation
and benefit scheme which was later approved by
President Ramos. In the following years, BCDA
officials and employees, as well as full time
consultants, received year-end benefits similar to
that given to BSP officials and employees.
According to Commission on Audit, this grant of
year-end benefit to Board members, as well as to
full-time consultants, was contrary to Department
of Budget and Management (DBM)s Circular
Letter No. 2002-2.

Ruling:
I.
No. Some of the provisions invoked in
the case at bare were taken from Art. II which the
Court categorically ruled to be non-self-executing
in some jurisprudence and do not require future
legislation for their enforcement. They merely lay
down a general principle and therefore cannot
give rise to a cause of action in the courts; they do
not embody judicially enforceable constitutional
rights.
II.
No. The Constitution grants the President
the power to reorganize the Office of the
President and the agencies under it, which
includes DOH, in recognition of the recurring
need of every President to reorganize his or her

Issue: Whether or not the Board members and

full-time consultants are entitled to the year-end
benefit because President Ramos approved the
granting and that they have been receiving it since
1997.
Ruling: No. The State is not estopped from
correcting a public officers erroneous application
of a statute, and an unlawful practice, no matter
how long, cannot give rise to any vested right.