Chenery
Corp., 332 US 194
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Unsound
real
estate
business
practices;
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Decision2:
No. Although PITC has quasi-legislative power, this does
not imply however, that the subject Administrative
Order is valid exercise of such. The original
Administrative Order issued on August 30, 1989, under
which the respondents filed their applications for
importation, was not published in the Official Gazette or
in a newspaper of general circulation. The questioned
Administrative Order, legally, until it is published, is
invalid within the context of Article 2 3 of Civil Code.
Discussion2:
Thus, even before the trade balancing measures issued
by the petitioner were lifted by President Fidel V. Ramos,
the same were never legally effective, and private
respondents, therefore, cannot be made subject to them,
because Administrative Order 89-08-0l embodying the
same was never published, as mandated by law, for its
effectivity.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION4
Article 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion
of their publication in the Official Gazette (or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines), unless it is otherwise provided
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
issued by the Office of the President, which provides for the creation of A
Committee to Investigate the Administrative Complaint Against Aquilino T.
Larin, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue as well as the
investigation made in pursuance thereto and
6
Petitioner is found guilty of the crimes of violation of Sec 268 (4) of NIRC and
Sec 3 of RA 3019 in Criminal Cases Nos 14208-14209 (ppl vs Larin et. al)
7
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 or the Specific Tax Service, of which
petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner, was one of those offices that was
abolished by said executive order.
8
Otherwise known as the Act Protecting the Security of Tenure of Civil Service
Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government
Reorganization.
9
Decision:
YES. Petitioner is a presidential appointee who belongs
to career service of the Civil Service. Being a presidential
appointee, he comes under the direct disciplining
authority of the President. This is in line with the well
settled principle that the power to remove is inherent in
the power to appoint conferred to the President by
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Thus, it is
ineluctably clear that Memorandum Order No. 164,
which created a committee to investigate the
administrative charge against petitioner, was issued
pursuant to the power of removal of the President.
- Under its Preamble, E.O. No. 132 lays down the legal
basis of its issuance, namely: a) Section 48 and 62 of R.A.
No. 7645, b) Section 63 of E.O. No. 127, and c) Section
20, Book III of E.O. No. 292. Section 48 & 62 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.
- The foregoing provision evidently shows that the
President is authorized to effect organizational changes
including the creation of offices in the department or
agency concerned.
- While the President's power to reorganize can not be
denied, this does not mean however that the
reorganization itself is properly made in accordance with
law. Well-settled is the rule that reorganization is
regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith.9
DISPOSITIVE PORTION10
Thus, in Dario vs. Mison, this court has had the occasion to clarify that:
"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
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
16
Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify
its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one.39Petitioner has failed to
discharge the burden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13, which IS indubitably
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Discussion:
- The Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJ's failure to
identify and discuss the issues raised by HSBC in its
Petition for Review. And, in support thereof, HSBC
maintains that it is incorrect to argue that "it was not
necessary for the Secretary of Justice to have his
resolution recite the facts and the law on which it was
based," because courts and quasi-judicial bodies should
faithfully comply with Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution requiring that decisions rendered by them
should state clearly and distinctly the facts of the case
and the law on which the decision is based
17
18
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Blaquera vs Alcala
Facts: 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 employees
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.
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.
Lumiqued vs Exevea
FACTS:
Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the
Department of Agrarian Reform - Cordillera
Autonomous Region (DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V.
Ramos dismissed him from that position pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993.
The following three complaints were filed by DAR-CAR
Regional Cashier and private respondent Jeannette
Obar-Zamudio with the Board of Discipline of the DAR:
-charged with malversation through falsification of
official documents. From May to September 1989,
Lumiqued allegedly committed at least 93 counts of
falsification by padding gasoline receipts.
-private respondent accused Lumiqued with violation of
Commission on Audit (COA) rules and regulations,
alleging that during the months of April, May, July,
August, September and October 1989, he made
unliquidated cash advances in the total amount of
P116,000.00
-charged with oppression and harassment. According to
private respondent, her two previous complaints
prompted Lumiqued to retaliate by relieving her from
her post as Regional Cashier without just cause
The DOJ made appropriate action by forming a
committee to investigate the complaints against
Lumiqued. *Committee hearings on the complaints
were conducted on July 3 and 10, 1992, but Lumiqued
was not assisted by counsel. On the second hearing date,
he moved for its resetting to July 17, 1992, to enable him
to employ the services of counsel. The committee
granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued nor his
counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen, so
the committee deemed the case submitted for
resolution. Acting on the report and recommendation,
former Justice Secretary Franklin M. Drilon adopted the
same in his Memorandum to President Fidel V. Ramos
dated October 22, 1992. On May 12, 1993, President
Fidel V. Ramos himself issued Administrative Order No.
52 (A.O. No. 52), 16 finding Lumiqued administratively
liable for dishonesty in the alteration of fifteen gasoline
receipts, and dismissing him from the service, with
forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits.
Petition for appeal addressed to Pres Ramos was filed by
Lumiqued praying that A.O. No. 52 be reconsidered and
that he be reinstated to his former position "with all the
benefits accorded to him by law and existing rules and
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
BANDA V. ERMITA
G.R. No. 166620
April 20, 2010
FACTS:
Sometime in 1987, The National Printing Office
(NPO) was formed during the term of former President
Aquino by virtue of Executive Order No. 285 which
provided, among others, the creation of the NPO from
the merger of the Government Printing Office and the
relevant printing units of the Philippine Information
Agency (PIA). In 2004, President Arroyo issued Executive
Order No. 378 on 2004 amending Section 6 of Executive
Order No. 285 by, inter alia, removing the exclusive
jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing services
requirements
of
government
agencies
and
instrumentalities.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 378,
government agencies and instrumentalities are allowed
to source their printing services from the private sector
through competitive bidding, subject to the condition
that the services offered by the private supplier be of
superior quality and lower in cost compared to what was
offered by the NPO. Executive Order No. 378 also limited
NPOs appropriation in the General Appropriations Act
to its income.
As such, the petitioners perceived that Executive
Order No. 378 is a threat to their security of tenure as
employees of the NPO. Hence, they filed this petition.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not President Arroyo has the power
to issue Executive Order No. 378?
b) Whether or not EO 378 is constitutional?
HELD:
a) YES. President Arroyo was granted by law to
issue Executive Order No. 378.
A GOCC existing under Presidential Decree No. 1869 issued on July 11, 1983
by then President Ferdinand Marcos created to xxx To establish and operate
clubs and casinos, for amusement and recreation, including sports, gaming
pools (basketball, football, lotteries, etc.) and such other forms of amusement
and recreation including games of chance, which may be allowed by law
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and which will: x x x (3)
minimize, if not totally eradicate, the evils, malpractices and corruptions that
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
22
which provides:
23
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
VS
FACTS:
Owners of subject property in Pulilan , Bulacan,
Spouses Ignacio, and CGA entered into a Contract
to Sell for the said subdivision lot with stipulations
on downpayment, installment terms and period.
CGA paid the downpayment and religiously paid its
monthly installments until it was discovered that
subject property had flaws and defects in its title;
that said lot was a property under litigation. CGA
filed an action before the RTC against Ignacio for
fraudulent concealment of property under litigation.
Ignacio moved to have the action dismissed
contending that the HLURB has jurisdiction over
their claims.
ISSUE:
Whether HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint
HELD:
Yes. HLURB had its beginning when pursuant to PD
No. 957 NHA was created intended to closely
supervise and regulate the real estate subdivision
and condominium businesses in order to curb the
growing number of swindling and fraudulent
manipulations perpetrated by unscrupulous
subdivision and condominium sellers and operators.
By virtue of succeeding executive orders, NHAs
jurisdiction expanded until its functions were
transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (HSRC) until it was eventually
renamed HLURB.
HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints
arising from contracts between the subdivision
developer and the lot buyer or those aimed at
compelling the subdivision developer to comply with
its contractual and statutory obligations to make the
subdivision a better place to live in.
In general, the quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial
powers which an administrative agency may
exercise is defined in the enabling act of such
agency. In other words, the extent to which an
administrative entity may exercise such powers
depends largely, if not wholly on the provisions of
the statute creating or empowering such agency. In
the exercise of such powers, the agency concerned
must commonly interpret and apply contracts and
determine the rights of private parties under such
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Issue:
WON EO 102 is void on the ground that it was
issued in excess of the president's authority.
Held: No. EO 102 is valid.
Executive Order No. 102 is well within the
constitutional power of the President to issue. The
President did not usurp any legislative prerogative
in issuing Executive Order No. 102. It is an exercise
of the President's constitutional power of control
over the executive department, supported by the
provisions of the Administrative Code, recognized
by other statutes, and consistently affirmed by this
Court.
The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on
petitioners' bare allegations that it violates the
general principles expressed in the non selfexecuting provisions they cite herein. There are two
reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged
infringement of broad constitutional principles: basic
considerations of due process and the limitations of
judicial power.
Petitioners also claim that Executive Order No. 102
is void on the ground that it was issued by the
President in excess of his authority. They maintain
that the structural and functional reorganization of
the DOH is an exercise of legislative functions,
which the President usurped when he issued
Executive Order No. 102. This line of argument is
without basis.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
La Bugal-BLaan v. Ramos
G.R. No. 127882. December 1, 2004. J.
Panganiban
Facts:
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before
the Court challenges the constitutionality of (1)
Republic Act 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of
1995); (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(DENR Administrative Order [DAO] 96-40); and (3)
the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) dated 30 March 1995, executed by the
government with Western Mining Corporation
(Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).
On 27 January 2004, the Court en banc
promulgated its Decision, granting the Petition and
declaring the unconstitutionality of certain
provisions of RA 7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the
entire FTAA executed between the government and
WMCP, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are
service contracts prohibited by the 1987
Constitution. The Decision struck down the subject
FTAA for being similar to service contracts,[9]
which, though permitted under the 1973
Constitution, were subsequently denounced for
being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over
our natural resources, because they allowed foreign
control over the exploitation of our natural
resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.
The Decision quoted several legal scholars and
authors who had criticized service contracts for,
inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive
management and control of the enterprise, including
operation of the field in the event petroleum was
discovered; control of production, expansion and
development; nearly unfettered control over the
disposition
and
sale
of
the
products
discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the
natural resource at the point of extraction; and
beneficial ownership of our economic resources.
According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution
(Section 2 of Article XII) effectively banned such
service contracts. Subsequently, Victor O. Ramos
(Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources [DENR]), Horacio Ramos (Director,
Mines and Geosciences Bureau [MGB-DENR]),
Ruben Torres (Executive Secretary), and the WMC
(Philippines) Inc. filed separate Motions for
Reconsideration.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUE:
Whether the issue as the President can terminate a
treaty without Congressional approval is a nonjusticiable political question.
HELD:
Yes, because it involves the authority of the
President in the conduct of our country's foreign
relations and the extent to which the Senate or the
Congress is authorized to negate the action of the
President. The question of the efficacy of
ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of
previous rejection or attempted withdrawal, should
be regarded as a political question pertaining to the
political departments, with the ultimate authority in
the Congress in the exercise of its control over the
promulgation of the adoption of the Amendment.
The controversy is a non-justiciable political dispute
that should be left for resolution by the Executive
and Legislative Branches of the Government and
might be answered in different ways for different
amendments which must surely be controlled by
political standards, rather than standards easily
characterized as "judicially manageable". In light of
the absence of any constitutional provision
governing the termination of a treaty, and the fact
that different termination procedures may be
appropriate for different treaties, the instant case, in
my view, also "must surely be controlled by political
standards."
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
FACTS:
HELD:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over
the case notwithstanding Olaguer's appointment as
fiscal agent of the PCGG.
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
May 5, 1989
ISSUE:
Whether the absence of designated limits in fixing
the length of service of a term of imprisonment (as
in Sec 32 of RA 4670) constitutes an exercise of
undue delegation of powers?
HELD:
Yes. The court held that It is not for the courts to fix
the term of imprisonment where no points of
reference have been provided by the legislature.
What valid delegation presupposes and
sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the
length of service of a term of imprisonment
which must be encompassed within specific or
designated limits provided by law, the absence
of which designated limits well constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an outright
intrusion into or assumption, of legislative power.
Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for an
indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither
a minimum nor a maximum duration having been set
by the legislative authority. The courts are thus
given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of
imprisonment, without even the benefit of any
sufficient standard, such that the duration thereof
may range, in the words of respondent judge, from
one minute to the life span of the accused.
Irremissibly, this cannot be allowed. It vests in the
courts a power and a duty essentially legislative in
nature and which, as applied to this case, does
violence to the rules on separation of powers as well
as the non-delegability of legislative powers. This
time, the preumption of constitutionality has to yield.
On the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the
separability clause in Section 34 of Republic Act No.
4670, the penalty of imprisonment provided in
Section 32 thereof should be, as it is hereby,
declared unconstitutional.
It follows, therefore, that a ruling on the proper
interpretation of the actual term of imprisonment, as
may have been intended by Congress, would be
pointless and academic. It is, however, worth
mentioning that the suggested application of the socalled rule or principle of parallelism, whereby a fine
of P1,000.00 would be equated with one year of
imprisonment, does not merit judicial acceptance. A
fine, whether imposed as a single or as an
alternative penalty, should not and cannot be
reduced or converted into a prisonv term; it is to be
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
Issue:
Whether or not the Secretary of DOJ commited
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Department
Order 182 and Memorandum?
Held:
No. The Secretary of DOJ did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the DO 182.
The Secretary of Justice did not exercise any judicial
or quasi-judicial functions because his questioned
issuance were ostensibly intended to ensure his
subordinates' efficiency and economy in conducting
the preliminary investigation involving the legacy
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
HELD:
FACTS:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
FACTS:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
ISSUE:
Whether or not in hearing the complaint of Yuson and in
ordering the reinstatement of the
Contract to Sell between the parties NHA assumed the
performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions which it
was not authorized to perform.
FACTS:
HELD:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
DARIO VS MISON
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers
APOE | AUSL | AY 2014-2015| Sat 9 - 12PM | Atty. Berns Guerrero | Admin Law by H. De Leon | Week 2: Chapter 2
Cases, Separation and Delegation of Powers