TENDENILLA VS. PURISIMA, G.R. NO.

210904, 24 NOVEMBER 2021

FACTS
Since 1953 the BOI or bureau of immigration have authorized its employees to
render overtime work at Philippine airports and seaports. The compensation in their
extended work hours, travelling expenses, meals board and lodging were collected by
these employees from the shipping or airline companies in which they have provided
their services. They provide the billings to the airline companies through their
employee’s association.

Later, the various airline companies are upset over taking on the financial burden of
these government employee’s extended work hours. With this, the chief executive
ordered Secretary Purisima and Secretary Roxas to provide memorandum and letter of
instruction on 2012 and to resolve the issue by discouraging and halting the private
entities responsibilities on shouldering overtime pays for the government employees
and also requesting the DBM for the creating of additional plantilla positions to address
any shortage of manpower which resulted to the implementation of the shifting schedule
prioritizing international airports.

The petitioners as represented by Tendenilla and Bello assailed the constitutionality of

the memorandum and letter of instruction because the shifting schedule policy is falling
under the Congress’ discretion. With this, the petitioners argued that these issuances
contravenes article 6 section 1 of 1987 constitution and section 7-A of the immigration
act.

ISSUES
 Whether or not the Petition should be dismissed outright for failure to comply with
rules on verification and certification against forum shopping
 Whether or not the Memorandum and Letter of Instruction violate Article VI,
Section 1 of the Constitution and the Section 7-A of the Immigration Act as it has
HELD
 It is in compliance , while the verification and certification against forum shopping
attached to the petition is defective for having been signed only by Tendenilla and
Bello, the court The court determines that the petitioners have largely fulfilled the
verification and certification obligations.
 In accordance with the petitioners' accurate argument, Tendenilla and Bello hold
positions within both the Immigration Officers' Association of the Philippines and
the Bureau of Immigration Ninoy Aquino International Airport Employees'
Association. As officers, they represent their fellow employees who were affected
by these issuances they are also aware of their colleagues’ concerns regarding
the assailed issuances and also they share common interest in announcing that
the issuances were unconstitutional.

 It is not a violation of the article 6 section 1 of the Philippine 1987 Constitution

and Section 7-a of the immigration act.

The principle of the separation of powers represents a fundamental aspect of

our democratic and republican form of governance. It involves the constitutional
delineation of the three essential branches of government. Legislative power,
entailing the ability to create, modify, and annul laws, is vested in Congress.
Executive power, characterized as the capacity to implement and manage laws,
is assigned to the President. The Judiciary, conversely, is responsible for the
interpretation of the law.

Although the law bestows discretion upon the Commissioner of Immigration, the
President, in the exercise of their power of control over the Executive, retains the
authority to modify, reassess, invalidate, or replace the Commissioner's use of
this discretion. Significantly, the Bureau of Immigration operates as an entity
within the executive division of the government and the president have the power
of control over the executive branch of government and it extends over all
executive officers from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk. This power of the
president is called the doctrine of qualified political agency. Therefore, issuances
were not a violation on the article 6 section 1 of the Philippine 1987 Constitution
and Section 7-a of the immigration act.