Sec. of DOTC vs.

Mabalot, 378 SCRA 129 (2000)

FACTS:

The Sec. of DOTC issued to LTFRB Chairman MO 96-735, transferring the regional functions of that office to
DOTCCAR Regional Office, pending creation of a Regional LTFRO. Later, the new Sec. of DOTC issued DO
97-1025, establishing the DOTCCAR Regional Office as the Regional Office of the LTFRB to exercise regional
functions of the LTFRB in the CAR subject to the direct supervision and control of the LTFRB Central Office.
Mabalot protested.

ISSUE:

W/N the MO and DO are violative of the provision of the Constitution against encroachment on the powers of
the legislative department

HELD:

SC upheld the validity of the issuance of the challenged orders.

In the absence of any patent or latent constitutional or statutory infirmity attending the issuance of the
challenged orders, Court upholds. The President, through his duly constituted political agent and alter ego,
may legally and validly decree the reorganization of the Department, particularly the establishment of the
DOTCCAR as the LTFRB Regional Office of CAR with the concomitant transfer and performance of public
functions and responsibilities appurtenant to a regional office of the LTFRB.

There are three modes of establishing an administrative body: (1) Constitution; (2) Statute; and (3) by authority
of law. This case falls under the third category.

The DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the President, is authorized by law to create and establish the LTFRB-
CAR Regional Office. This is anchored on the President’s “power of control” under sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution.

By definition, control is “the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter.” It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo such act or to assume
a power directly vested in him by law.

Under sec. 20, Bk. III, E.O. 292, the Chief Executive is granted residual powers, stating that “unless Congress
provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President
which are provided for under the laws xxx”

What law then gives him the power to reorganize? It is PD 1772 which amended PD 1416. These decrees
expressly grant the President of the Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the national government,
which includes the power to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer functions,
to create and classify functions, services and activities and to standardize salaries and materials.

Granted that the President has the power to reorganize, was the reorganization of DOTCCAR valid?

In this jurisdiction, reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith. 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. The reorganization in the instant case was decreed “in the interest of service” and “for purposes of
economy and more effective coOrdination of the DOTC functions in the Cordillera Administrative Region.” It
thus bear the earmarks of good faith.
 Eugenio vs. CSC, 243 SCRA 196 (1995)

FACTS:

Eugenio, the Deputy Director of Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, applied for a Career Executive Service
(CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank. But before she got the rank, the CSC passed Resolution No. 93-459,
reorganizing itself and changing the CES Board (CESB) to Office for Career Executive Service of the Civil
Service Commission (OCES).

ISSUE:

W/N CSC usurped legislative function of Congress by abolishing the CESB and transferring its budget to
OCES

HELD:

CESB was created by PD 1. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as CESB was created by law, it can only be
abolished by the legislature. While CSC has the power to reorganize under Sec. 17, Chap. 3, Subtitle A, Title
I, Bk. V. of the Administrative Code of 1987, this must be read with sec. 16, which enumerates the offices
under the control of the CSC. CESB is not one of such offices.

CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to CSC. This essential
autonomous character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to respondent Commission. By said
attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the control of respondent Commission. Under the Administrative
Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching one functionally inter-related government agency to another is to attain
“policy and program coordination.”