Carmen Planas vs Jose Gil, Commissioner of Civil Service

G.R. L-46440, January 18, 1939

Laurel, J.

Facts:
On November 17, 1938, Carmen Planas, a member of the municipal board of the City of Manila
made a statement and critized the acts of certain government officials in connection with the general
election for Assemblymen held on November 8,1938 which said statement as published in a Local
newspaper of La Vanguardia making a controversial issue which caught the attention of His
Excellency. On 18th of November 1938 the petitioner received a letter summoning her to appear
before the Commission of Civil Service on 22nd of November at 9:00 am to prove the petitioner's
allegation and statement of which failure to do will result to the suspension or removal of office. Of
which led the petitioner to file a petition to enjoin the respondents from conducting an investigation.
The petitioner contends that:

a) the respondent is absolutely without jurisdiction to investigate petitioner with a view to her
suspension or removal in connection with her statement of November 17 th and the said
investigation with a view to petitioner's suspension or removal is against Article VII, sec. 11
(1) of the Constitution of the Philippines and is not warranted by any statutory provision;

b) the petitioner cannot be investigated administratively with a view to her suspension or

removal except for acts or conduct connected with the discharge of her official functions;

c) That petitioner is accountable for her political acts to her constituency alone, unless such
acts constitute offenses punishable under our penal laws, and not to execute officials
belonging to a party opposed to that to which petitioner is affiliated;

d) That petitioner's statement of November 17th made by her as a private citizen and in the
exercise of her right to discuss freely political questions cannot properly be the subject of an
administrative investigation had with a view to her suspension or removal

e) The petitioner's responsibility is a matter that should be heard and decided by the competent
courts in a trial publicly and impartially conducted, and should not be the subject of an
administrative investigation with a view to suspension or removal held behind closed doors

f) Jorge B. Vargas, Secretary to the President' is without any force or effect, since the powers
and prerogatives vested in the President of the Philippines by our Constitution and by our
laws can be exercised by the President alone, and cannot be delegated to anyone
 g) That the proposed investigation with a view to petitioner's suspension or removal by his
Honorable Court, would constitute an exercise of arbitrary, inquisitorial, unlawful, and
oppressive powers on the part of respondent, tending to the suppression of the constitutional
right of petitioner, as a citizen, to express freely and without fear of political persecution her
honest opinions concerning the policies and political conduct of government officials.

Issue:
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission has the authority or jurisdiction to conduct investigation
on the petitioner issued by the Chief Executive

Ruling:
The President of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to command the Civil Service Commission to
conduct investigation on the petitioner as stated on section 64 of the Administrative code of 1917:
"an investigation of any action or the conduct of any person in the Government service, and in
connection therewith to designate the official, committee, or person by whom such investigation shall
be conducted."
The acts of the Chief Executive performed within the limits of his jurisdiction are his official acts and
courts will neither direct nor restrain executive action in such cases. The rule is non-interference. But
from this legal premise, it does not necessarily follow that we are precluded from making an inquiry
into the validity or constitutionality of his acts when these are properly challenged in an appropriate
legal proceeding. The classical separation of governmental powers, whether viewed in the light of
the political philosophy of Aristotle, Locke, or Montesquieu, or of the postulations of Mabini, Madison,
or Jefferson. There is more truism and actuality in interdependence than in independence and
separation of powers.
The judiciary restrains the other departments of the government and this result is one of the
necessary corollaries of the "system of checks and balance" of the government established.
The relative immunity of the Chief Executive from judicial interference is not in the nature of a
sovereign passport for all the subordinate officials and employees of the Executive Department to
the extent that at the mere invocation of the authority that it purports the jurisdiction of this court to
inquire into the validity or legality of an executive order is necessarily abated or suspended.
The petitioner is not denied the right, nor is she being investigated because she had exercised that
right. She has a perfect right to criticize the Government, its administration, its policies and officials,
but she may not, on the plea of freedom of speech and of the press, impute violations of law and the
commission of frauds and thereafter fold her arms and decline to face an investigation conducted to
elicit the truth or falsity of the charges formulated by her.
The Supreme Court dismissed the original petition of Planas to enjoin the respondents from
conducting the investigation issued by the president. The ruling of the Supreme Court resulted to the
dismissal of petition with costs against her.
 ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST vs. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA
G.R. No. 166715 August 14, 2008
CORONA, J.:

Facts:

Republic Act 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). It said to encourage BIR and
BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and
sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue
Performance Evaluation Board (Board). The petitioners gathered together and questioned the
constitutionality of the said law which they contend that:

a) establishing a system of rewards and incentives, the law "transforms the officials and employees
of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters

b) invites corruption and undermines the constitutionally mandated duty of these officials

c) claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and has
no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system should not apply to officials
and employees of all other government agencies

d)assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a
sufficient standard on that matter and assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on
the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers

Issue:

Whether or not the said Republic Act 9335 is unconstitutional

Ruling:

A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of constitutionality. Public officers enjoy
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. This presumption necessarily
obtains in favor of BIR and BOC officials and employees. The question the petition for being
premature as there is no actual case or controversy yet. The assertion that the allegation that the
reward system will breed mercenaries is mere speculation and does not suffice to invalidate the law.
RA 9335 safeguards to ensure that the reward will not be claimed if it will be either the fruit of the
product of the irregular performance of official duties.

To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a
doubtful and equivocal one. The petitioner's stand that RA 3553 violates equal protection is
speculative because the law is equal among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are
classified based on substantial differences in relation to the object to be accomplished. It also states
the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets and the implementing
agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. The petition by the Abakada Guro Party-list was
partially granted which Section 12 of RA 9335 was declared unconstitutional although the remaining
provisions of RA 9335 is upheld or constitutional.