SCRIPT PICHAY VS Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal

Affairs – Investigative and Adjudication Division

FACTS:
1. On April 16, 2001, Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO 12 creating the
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and vesting it with the power to
investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints for possible graft and
corruption, among others, against presidential appointees and to submit its report
and recommendations to the President.
2. On November 15, 2010, Pres. Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued EO 13,
abolishing the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and transferring its functions to
the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more
particularly to its newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD).
3. On April 6, 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima filed before the
Investigative and Adjudicatory Division -ODESLA a complaint affidavit for grave
misconduct against Petitioner Prospero Pichay, Jr. Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), as well as other
incumbent members of the Local Water Utilities Administration Board of
Trustees, namely:
 Renato Velasoc, Susana Dumlao Vargas, Bonifacio Mario M Pena Sr, and
Daniel Landingin.

Due to the purchase by the Local Water Utilities Administration of 445,377

shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc.
4. On April 14, 2011, petitioner received an Order signed by Executive Secretary
Paquito Ochoa, Jr. requiring him and his corespondents to submit their
respective written explanations under oath.
5. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss given that a case involving the same
transaction and charge of grave misconduct is already pending before the Office
of the Ombudsman.
6. Hence, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, where petitioners
contend that the Pres. Aquino is not authorized under any existing law to create
the Investigative and Adjudication Division, Office of the Deputy Executive
Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA)
ISSUE/RULING:
1. Whether or not E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for usurping the power of the
legislature to create a public office?
The President has continuing authority to reorganize the Executive Department
as provided by E.O. 292 (Admin Code of 1987) under Sec 31 in order to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency.
E.O. 292 sanctions the following actions undertaken for such purpose:
  Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the
immediate Offices by abolishing or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one
unit to another;
 Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as
well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies;
and
 Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as
well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments or agencies.

The President's power to reorganize the Office of the President under Section 31 (2)
and (3) of EO 292 should be distinguished from his power to reorganize the Office of the
President Proper
o Section 31 (1) of EO 292 President can reorganize the Office of the President
Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by transferring functions from
one unit to another.
oSection 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 President's power to reorganize offices
outside the Office of the President Proper but still within the Office of the President is
limited to transferring functions or agencies from the Office of the President to
Departments or Agencies, and vice versa.
 In the case at bar, applying the rule above:
o Under E.O. 12 (w/ch created Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission PAGC), it was composed of a Chairman and
(2) Commissioners who held the ranks of Presidential
Assistant II and I and was placed directly "under the Office
of the President."
o The ODESLA, to which the functions of the PAGC have
now been transferred, is an office within the Office of the
President Proper.
o Both of these offices belong to the Office of the President
Proper, the reorganization by way of abolishing the PAGC
and transferring its functions to the ODESLA is allowable
under E.O. 292.

Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora – The Court affirmed that the President’s authority
to carry out a reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive department is an
express grant by the legislature by virtue of E.O 292.
And in Domingo v. Zamora – The Court stated that to remain effective and efficient, the
Office of the President must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President
in the manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and policies.
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a division specially
created within the ODESLA is properly within the prerogative of the President under his
continuing delegated legislative authority to reorganize his own office pursuant to EO
292.
2. Whether or not E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for usurping the power of the
legislature to appropriate funds?
- Pichay contends that since Congress did not indicate the manner by which
the appropriation for the Office of the President was to be distributed, taking
therefrom the operational funds of the IAD-ODESLA would amount to an
illegal appropriation by the President.
o The President has the power to recommend the budget necessary for
the operation of the Government, which implies that he has the
necessary authority to evaluate and determine the structure that each
government agency in the executive department would need to operate
in the most economical and efficient manner.
 The President is also given the constitutional authority to augment any
item in the General Appropriations Law using the savings in other items
of the appropriation for his office.
 There is no usurpation of the legislature's power to appropriate funds
when the President simply allocates the existing funds previously
appropriated by Congress for his office.
3. In delegation of quasi judicial powers
• Pichay contends that the IAD-ODESLA was illegally vested with judicial power
which is reserved to the Judicial Department and, by way of exception through an
express grant by the legislature, to administrative agencies.
o SC: No! While the term "adjudicatory" appears part of its appellation, the IAD-
ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its authority being limited to the conduct of
investigations, preparation of reports and submission of recommendations.
o Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to "investigate or hear
administrative cases or complaints against all presidential appointees in the
government" and to "submit its report and recommendations to the President." The IAD-
ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the President, not having the
power to settle controversies and adjudicate cases.
o The President's authority to issue E.O. 13 and constitute the IAD-ODESLA as his
fact-finding investigator is valid under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution (faithful
execution clause)
4. In encroachment on the powers of the Ombudsman
• The IAD-ODESLA did not encroach upon the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction
when it took cognizance of the complaint affidavit filed against him notwithstanding the
earlier filing of criminal and administrative cases involving the same charges and
allegations before the Office of the Ombudsman.
• The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute cases
refers to criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and not to administrative
cases. It is only in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction that the Ombudsman may, at
any time, take over the investigation being conducted by another investigatory agency.
• The case filed before the IAD-ODESLA is an administrative disciplinary case for
grave misconduct, the primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to prevent the IAD-
ODESLA from proceeding with its investigation shouldn’t be invoked.
• The Ombudsman's authority to investigate both elective and appointive officials
in the government is shared with other similarly authorized government agencies.
• The Ombudsman's function goes into the determination of the merits of a criminal
accusation, WHILE, the investigative authority of the IAD- ODESLA is limited to that of a
fact-finding investigator whose determinations and recommendations remain so until
acted upon by the President.
6. In right to due process
• Pichay’s right to due process was not violated when the IAD-ODESLA took
cognizance of the administrative complaint against him since he was given sufficient
opportunity to oppose the formal complaint filed by Secretary Purisima.
• In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable
opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute
the minimum requirements of due process.
• As long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side and present
evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied. The records
show that petitioner was issued an Order requiring him to submit his written explanation
under oath with respect to the charge of grave misconduct filed against him. His own
failure to submit his explanation despite notice defeats his subsequent claim of denial of
due process.

5. In right to equal protection of the laws

• Petitioner contends that the arbitrariness of limiting the IAD-ODESLA's
investigation only to presidential appointees
o SC: No! The equal protection clause is not absolute but subject to reasonable
classification
o The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or
class privilege. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
o Presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining authority of the
President. Having the power to remove and/or discipline presidential
appointees, the President has the authority to investigate such public officials and look
into their conduct in office.
o Pichay is a presidential appointee occupying the high-level position of Chairman
of the LWUA. Necessarily, he comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President.
• There are substantial distinctions that set apart presidential appointees
occupying upper-level positions in government from non-presidential appointees and
those that occupy the lower positions in government.
7. On lawful performance of duties (extra :D)
• Pichay doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully perform its duties as an
impartial tribunal, contending that both the IAD-ODESLA and respondent Secretary
Purisima are connected to the President.
o SC: No! Mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice. Pichay must present
substantial proof to show that the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably sided against him in
the conduct of the investigation. No such evidence has been presented.
• Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its
nullification, there must be a clear breach of the Constitution. Pichay has failed to
discharge the burden of proving the illegality of E.O. 13