ADMIN2 | LDCS

Larin v. Executive Secretary

280 SCRA 713

FACTS:

A decision was rendered by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner Aquilino Larin, Revenue Specific Tax
Officer, then Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and his co-accused of the crimes
of violation of Section 268 (4) of the NIRC and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. The fact of petitioner's
conviction was reported to the President of the Philippines through a memorandum. Acting by authority
of the President, Sr. Deputy Executive Secretary Quisumbing issued Memorandum Order which
provides for the creation of an Executive Committee to investigate the administrative charge against
herein petitioner. Meanwhile, the President issued the challenged Executive Order No. 132 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.
Consequently, the President, in the assailed Administrative Order No. 101 dated December 2, 1993,
found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct in the administrative charge. Aggrieved, petitioner filed
directly with this Court the instant petition which challenged the authority of the President to dismiss
him from office and claimed that he was removed as a result of the reorganization made by the
Executive Department in the BIR pursuant to Executive Order No. 132. Thus, he assailed said Executive
Order No. 132 being ultra vires. He said that the reorganization sought to be effected by the Executive
Department on the basis of E.O. No. 132 is tainted with bad faith in apparent violation of Section 2 of
R.A. 6656.

ISSUE:

Whether or not President have the power to reorganize the BIR or to issue the questioned E.O. NO. 132

HELD:

YES. It is Presidential Decree No. 1772 9 which amended Presidential Decree No. 1416 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. The
validity of these two decrees are unquestionable. The 1987 Constitution clearly provides that "all laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
Significantly, the Constitution itself recognizes future reorganizations in the government as what is
revealed in Section 16 of Article XVIII. While the President's power to reorganize cannot 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.
 ADMIN2 | LDCS

Dario v. Mison

176 SCRA 84

FACTS:

When President Cory Aquino came into power, she proceeded to reorganize the government, upon
which Mison, the Commissioner of Customs sent notices of termination to 394 Customs officials. Some
sought reinstatement from the CSC which the latter granted to 279 of them while the others went
directly to the Supreme Court. Mison also filed a petition questioning the decision of the CSC. Also, RA
6656 was passed, providing that all officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service
Commission to have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated
or reappointed. The validity of this law is also put into question.

HELD:

All the parties agree on the validity of reorganization per se, leaving the question only on its nature and
extent. Invariably, transition periods are characterized by provisions for "automatic" vacancies. They are
dictated by the need to hasten the passage from the old to th e new Constitution free from the "fetters"
of due process and security of tenure .At this point, we must distinguish removals from separations
arising from abolition of office (not by virtue of the Constitution) as a result of reorganization carried out
by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of functions. In the latter case, the Government is
obliged to prove good faith. In case of removals undertaken to comply with clear and explicit
constitutional mandates, the Government is not obliged to prove anything because the Constitution
allows it. Evidently, the question is whether or not Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is a
grant of a license upon the Government to remove career public officials it could have validly done
under an "automatic"-vacancy-authority and to remove them without rhyme or reason.
 ADMIN2 | LDCS

Bagaoisan vs Nat'l Tobacco Administration.

G.R. No. 152845 : August 5, 2003

FACTS:

The petitioner was terminated from there position in the national tobacco administration as a result of
the executive order issued by president Estrada whic mandates for the stream lining of the national
tobacco administration, a government agency under the department of agriculture. The petitioners filed
a letter of appeal to the civil service commission to recall the ossp. Petitioner all file a petition for
certiorari with prohibition an mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and a
temporary restraining order with the regional trial court of Batak to prevent the respondent from
enforcing the notice of termination and from austing the petitioners in there respective offices. The
regional trial court issued an order ordering the national tobacco administration to appoint the
petitioner to the osspto position similar to the one that they hold before. The national tobacco
administration appealed to the court of appeals who reversed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner
appealed to the supreme court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the reorganization of the national tobacco administration is valid true issuance of
executive orderby the president.

HELD:

According to the supreme court. The president has the power to reorganized an office to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency as provided under executive order 292 sec. 31 and section 48 of RA
7645 which provides that activities of executive agencies may be scaled down if it is no longer essential
for the delivery of public service. WHEREFORE, the Motion to Admit Petition for En Banc resolution and
the Petition for an En Banc Resolution are DENIED for lack of merit. Let entry of judgment be made in
due course. No costs.
 ADMIN2 | LDCS

Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary Zamora

360 SCRA 718

FACTS

During the time of President Corazon Aquino, she created the Economic Intelligence and Investigation
Bureau (EIIB) to primarily conduct anti-smuggling operations in areas outside the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Customs. In the year 2000, President Estrada issued an order deactivating the EIIB. He
subsequently ordered the employees of EIIB to be separated from the service. Thereafter, he created
the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force “Aduana”, which EIIB employees claim to be essentially the
same as EIIB. The employees of EIIB, through the Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB, invoked the Supreme Court’s
power of judicial review in questioning the said orders. EIIB employees maintained that the president
has no power to abolish a public office, as that is a power solely lodged in the legislature; and that the
abolition violates their constitutional right to security of tenure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition has merit.

HELD:

No. It is a general rule that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. The
exception is when it comes to agencies, bureaus, and other offices under the executive department, the
president may deactivate them pursuant to control power over such offices, unless such office is created
by the Constitution. This is also germane to the president’s power to reorganize the Office of the
President. Basis of such power also has its roots in two laws i.e., PD 1772 and 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. Also, it cannot be said that there is bad faith in the abolition of EIIB. EIIB allocations has
always exceeded P100 million per year. To save the government some money, it needed to abolish it
and replace it with TF Aduana which has for its allocation just P50 million. Further, TYF Aduana is
invested more power that EIIB never had, i.e., search and seizure and arrest. Lastly, EEIB employees’
right to security of tenure is not violated. Since there is no bad faith in the abolition of EIIB, such
abolition is not infirm. Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. If
the public office ceases to exist, there is no separation or dismissal to speak of. Indeed, there is no such
thing as an absolute right to hold office. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity
as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.
 ADMIN2 | LDCS

Crisostomo v. CA

258 scra 134

FACTS:

Crisostomo was appointed the President of the Philippine College of Commerce (PCC) by the President
of the Philippines. During his incumbency, two administrative charges were filed against him for illegal
use of government vehicles, misappropriation of construction materials, oppression and harassment,
grave misconduct, nepotism and dishonesty before the Office of the President. Likewise, he was also
charged with violation of Anti-Grant and Corrupt Practices Act with the Tanodbayan. As such, he was
preventively suspended and Dr. Mateo was designated as the officer-in-charge in his place. Meanwhile,
Pres. Marcos passed PD 1341 converting PCC into PUP with Mateo as President. Crisostomo was later
acquitted and his administrative charges were dismissed.

ISSUE:

Did PD 1314 abolish PCC?

HELD:

PD 1314 did not abolish, but only changed the PCC into what is now PUP. What took place wasa change
in the academic status of the educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence, the change in its
name, the expansion of its curriculum offerings and changes in its structure and organization.As a
general rule, when the purpose of the lawmaking authority is to abolish the office and create a new one,
he says so. In the instant case, PD 1314 merely states that PCC is convertedinto the PUP. In addition, the
law does not state that the lands, buildings and equipment owned by the PCC were being “transferred”
to the PUP but only that they “stand transferred” to it. “Stand transferred” simply means, for example,
that lands transferred to the PCC were to be understood as transferred to the PUP as the new name of
the institution.