7

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 192935. December 7, 2010.]
LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010, respondent.
Facts:

President Benigno Simeon Aquino III signed Executive Order No. 1 "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010." In the present case, two consolidated petitions assailing the validity and constitutionality EO No. 1 were
filed before the Supreme Court.

According to petitioners, is that EO No. 1 cannot be legitimized by the provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31
of the Administrative Code of 1987 because the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize the
Office of the President to achieve economy, simplicity and efficiency does not include the power to create an
entirely new public office. In addition, EO No. 1 also violates the separation of powers and the equal protection
clause.

Issue:
Whether or not EO No. 1 is constitutional?

Held:
No, EO No. 1 is unconstitutional.

First, the Administrative Code of 1987 does not mention the creation of an office but only contemplates
"reorganization" as limited by the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason
of economy or redundancy of functions.

Second, although the President has the power of control, it is entirely different from the power to create public
offices.

However, under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President has the duty to ensure that the laws
are faithfully executed. One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this is the power to
create ad hoc committees.

Still, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of EO No. 1 in view of its violation of the equal
protection clause.

The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the
reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration" only. The Arroyo administration is but
just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class of its own. Not to include past
administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction.
8

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 166052. August 29, 2007.]
ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP, as represented by Rep. Mujiv S. Hataman, and MAMALO DESCENDANTS
ORGANIZATION, INC., as represented by its Chairman Romy Pardi, petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
THE HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, and THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN/LAND REFORM, THE HON. RENE C.
VILLA, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 364 – which transformed the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) into the Department of Land Reform (LDR) and placing the Presidential
Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) under the supervision and control of the DAR – and E.O. No. 379,
amending E.O. No. 364, which declared the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as an attached
agency of the DLR.

While the issue on the transformation of the DAR into the DLR became moot and academic, DAR having reverted
to its former name by virtue of E.O. No. 456, the sole issue now is the legality of placing the PCUP under the
supervision and control of the DAR, and the NCIP under the DAR as an attached agency.

The petitioners contend that the orders are unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers.

Issue:
Whether or not E.O. Nos. 364 and 379 are unconstitutional

Held:
No, E.O. Nos. 364 and 379 are not unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution, the President is the Chief Executive who has control over the executive department,
bureaus and offices. This power of control justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization measures under
a broad authority of law.

Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative
structure of the Office of the President.

The Office of the President consists of the Office of the President proper and the agencies under it, including the
PCUP and NCIP.

The consolidation of functions in E.O. 364 which aims to attain the objectives of "simplicity, economy and
efficiency" as gathered from the provision granting PCUP and NCIP access to the range of services provided by the
DAR's technical offices and support systems, does not violate the rule of law.
9

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 152845. August 5, 2003.]
DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, FELY MADRIAGA, SHIRLY TAGABAN, RICARDO SARANDI, SUSAN IMPERIAL,
BENJAMIN DEMDEM, RODOLFO DAGA, EDGARDO BACLIG, GREGORIO LABAYAN, HILARIO JEREZ, and
MARIA CORAZON CUANANG, petitioners,vs.NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, Represented by
ANTONIO DE GUZMAN and PERLITA BAULA, respondents.

Facts:

President Joseph Estrada issued Executive Order No. (E.O.) 29, entitled "Mandating the Streamlining of
the National Tobacco Administration (NTA)," and E.O. No. 36, amending E.O. No. 29, to increase from
four hundred (400) to not exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) the positions affected thereby. The NTA,
hence, adopted a new Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP).

Petitioners, after receiving individual notices of termination of their employment with the NTA, filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the RTC. The RTC then ordered the NTA to
appoint petitioners in the new OSSP to positions similar or comparable to their respective former
assignments. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision, which was already affirmed by the SC.

Petitioners, hence, filed this motion to admit petition for en banc resolution of the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the President, through the issuance of an executive order, can validly carry out the
reorganization of the NTA?

Held:
Yes.

Article VII, Section 17, of the 1987 Constitution, grants the President control of all executive
departments, bureaus, agencies and offices which justifies an executive action to inactivate the
functions of a particular office or to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.

Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of
1987), 'the President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency, shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure
of the Office of the President.'

In the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a
mere reorganization under the general provisions of the law consisting mainly of streamlining the NTA in
the interest of simplicity, economy and efficiency.