 Mandamus is employed to compel the  When the purpose is to abolish a

performance, when refused, of a department or an office or an

ministerial duty, this being its main
objective. It does not lie to require
anyone to fulfill a discretionary duty. It
is essential to the issuance of a writ of
mandamus that petitioner should have a
clear legal right to the thing demanded
and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required. It
never issues in doubtful cases. While it
may not be necessary that the duty be
absolutely expressed, it must
nevertheless be clear. The writ will not
issue to compel an official to do anything
which is not his duty to do or which is his
duty not to do, or give to the applicant
anything to which he is not entitled by
law. The writ neither confers powers nor
imposes duties. It is simply a command
to exercise a power already possessed
and to perform a duty already imposed.
(Pefianco vs. Moral, G.R. No. 132448,
January 19, 2000)
organization and to replace it with
another one, the lawmaking authority
says so. [Crisostomo vs. Court of
Appeals, 258 SCRA 134 (1996)]
 Courts and quasi-judicial bodies, in the
exercise of their functions and in making
decisions, must not be too dogmatic as to
restrict themselves to literal
interpretations of words, phrases and
sentences. A complete and wholistic new
must must be taken in order to render a
just and equitable judgment. [Philippines
Today, Inc. vs. NLRC, 267 SCRA
202(1997)]


 The power to create an office is not

included in the power to reorganize. The
President’s power to reorganize is
limited to “a) restructuring the internal
organization of the Office of the
President by abolishing, consolidating or
merging units thereof or transferring
functions from one unit or another; b)
transferring any function under the
Officer of the President to any other
Department or Agency, or vice versa; or
3) transferring any agency under the
Office of the President to any other
Department/Agency or vice versa. The
power to reorganize includes a
modification of an office that already
exists; not a creation of a completely new
office (Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth
Commission, G.R. No. 192935.
December 7, 2010)