CLU v.

Executive Secretary Facts: Two petitioner CLU and Anti Graft League of the Phil EO 284 grants secretaries, usec, and sec to hold other positions. CLU assails the constitutionality of the EO. Arguing that it is contrary to Art. VII, Section 13 of the Constitution. Anti-Graft also assail the DOJ opinion of Secretary Ordoez. Claiming that lumped together 2 constitutional provisions. Held: SC looked into the purpose of the Constitutional prohibition One of the strongest selling points of the 1987 Constitution during the campaign for its ratification was the assurance given by its proponents that the scandalous practice of Cabinet members holding multiple positions in the government and collecting unconscionably excessive compensation therefrom would be discontinued. Although a different constitutional provision already said that secretaries can't hold other position, the framers saw it fit to make a different provision. From this move the intent of the framers was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family insofar as holding other offices. The prohibition imposed on the president and his official family is all embracing and covers both public and private employment. The all embracing prohibition imposed on the President and his official family are proof of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat them as a class by itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibitions. While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet , their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. Cruz v. COA Facts: COA issued a memorandum which states that all unit heads/ auditors/ team leaders of the national government agencies and GOCCs which have effected payment of any form of additional compensation or remuneration to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistant in violation of the rule on multiple position to: (CLU was cited) refund the amounts received cause the disallowance Following the memorandum, NHA Auditor issued a notice of disallowance 20 BOD NHA filed this petition. They argued that the CLU decision applies to only to members of the Cabinet, their assistants or deputies only. That it does not cover appointive officials with an equivalent rank or those lower than the position of Assistant Secretary. And that they are not Secretaries, Usec or

sec. COA argued that the directors were not sitting in the NHA Board in their own right but as representatives of cabinet members and who are constitutionally prohibited from holding multiple offices. Petitioners argued that they were not the one mandated by law to sit as members of the NHA Board. (mandated: Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and COmmunications; Director-General of NEDA; Sec of Finance; Sec of Labor; Sec of Industry; Exec Sec; Gen. Manager of NHA. Held: While petitioners are not among those officers mandated by law to sit as members of the NHA Board they are "alternates" of said officers, whose acts shall be considered the acts of the principal. Since Executive Department Secretaries are prohibited from receiving extra compensation, it follows that petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be entitled to receive such compensation. NAC v. COA Facts: President Ramos created National Amnesty Commission, which is tasked to receive, process, and review amnesty applications. It is composed of a chairperson, 3 regular members, the sec of justice, sec of national defense and interior and Local government as ex officio members the 3 ex-officio members turned over said responsibility to their representatives who were paid honoraria amounting to 255, 750 pesos. However, NAC resident auditor disallowed the payment of honoraria to the representative pursuant to a COA memorandum. Meanwhile AO 2 was approved by President Estrada wherein it states that the exofficio members may designate their representative to the NAC which shall be entitled to per diems, allowances, bonuses, and other benefits as may be authorized by law. Petitioner invoke AO 2 in assailing the ruling of COA. Held: While all other appointive officials in the Civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions; members of the cabinet, their deputies or assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the constitution itself. The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services on the said position. The prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is not to be interpreted as covering positions held without additional compensation in ex-officio capacities as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of the concerned official's office. An appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual who is to

exercise the powers and functions of a given office; a designation merely connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment. Designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or grant upon the person so designated the right to claim the salary attached to the position. DENR v. DENR Region 12 Facts: The Regional Executive Director of DENR for Region 12 issued a memorandum directing the immediate transfer of the DENR 12 Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal Cotabato. The memorandum was issued pursuant to DENR Executive Order issued by the DENR secretary. Repondents filed with the RTC a petition for nullity of the order with preliminary injunction RTC ruled in favor of respondents Held: Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency; Under this doctrine, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the executive department and the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed through the Executive Departments. The trial court should have taken judicial notice of RA 6734 as implemented by EO 429 as legal basis of the President's power to reorganized the Executive Department, specifically those administrative regions which did not vote for their inclusion in the ARMM Separation of Powers, courts cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of the Executive or the legislative. Hutchinson Ports Philippines Limited v. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority Facts: SBMA invited bidders for an opportunity to develop and operate a modern marine container terminal within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. 3 bidders bid: ICTSI, RPSI, and HPPL. The bidders were required to submit business plan. SBMA hired a firm to help them evaluate the plan. After such review, HPPL won. Side story: RPSI protested ICTSI that it is legally barred from operating a second port in the Philippines. Another side story: Ombudsman investigated SMBA but later found out that its award to HPPL was not done fraudulently. SMBA submitted to the office of the president the results of the evaluation. Executive Secretary, however, submitted to the Office of the President a memorandum recommending that another rebidding be conducted. Thereafter, the Office of the President issued a Memorandum directing the SBMA to refrain from signing the concession contract with HPPL. Feeling aggrieved, HPPL filed a petition which prays hat SBMA execute the

agreement and contract. Held: The SBMA Board of Directors and other officers are subject to the control and supervision of the Office of the President- al projects undertaken by SBMA require approval of the President of the Philippines under Letter of Instruction No. 620, which places the SBMA under its ambits as an instrumentality. HPPL has not shown that it has a clear and unmistakable right to be declared the winning bidder with finality. It is well established that the discretion to accept or reject bid, or even recall the award thereof, is of such wide latitude that the courts will not generally interfere with the exercise thereof by the executive department. HPPL must be held to be incapacitated to bring this petition for injunction before this court for it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a requisite license. NEA v. COA Facts: The National Electrification Administration is a GOCC with the responsibility of organizing, financing and regulating electric cooperatives throughout the country. RA 6758 took effect. It provided, among others, a salary schedule for all government positions, appointive or elective, including positions in GOCCs. In response to pressing economic difficulties, and the need to levitate the plight of government personnel, the Senate and the HR urged the President, through a joint resolution to increase the salary of government employees. President Ramos acted on the joint resolution and issued EO 389 which directed payment of the fourth and final salary increases authorized under Joint Resolution No. 1 in TWO TRENCHES. NEA implemented the salary increase but it did not do so in two trenches. COA resident auditor issued a notice of suspension requiring the submission of the legal basis for the full implementation of the new salary schedule. And thus, COA resident auditor issued a notice of disallowance. COA sustained the decision made by the resident auditor. NEA argues that it may accelerate the implementation of the salary increases due to the availability of funds. Held: Budgetary appropriations under the GAA do not constitute unbridled authority to government agencies to spend the appropriated amounts as they may wish. Section 60, Chapter 7, Book VI of the Administrative Code provides that no portion of the appropriations in the GAA shall be used for payment of any salary increase or adjustment unless specifically authorized by law or appropriate budget circular Section 33 of the 1997 GAA itself expressly provides that the salary increase authorized by the Senate-HR Joint Resolution or the salary standardization

law are subject to the approval by the President Section 10 of EO 289 does not authorize, expressly or impliedly, the advance implementation of the salary increases just because the GOCC has the available funds.