Administrative & Election Law

with Public Officers

Group 1
Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July
23, 1998
FACTS :

The late Senator Blas Ople claims that AO 308 to be

unconstitutional
"Adoption of a National Computerized Identification
Reference System"
a computerized system to properly and efficiently identify
persons seeking basic services on social security and reduce
AO 308 is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the people’s privacy

Encroachment of the Legislature’s power to legislate laws

Senator Ople Claims that the said AO is not merely an AO because it

partakes of the nature of a law
ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of President Ramos is an

encroachment of the functions of the Legislature.
RULING:

Yes, its is an encroachment to the functions of the legislature.

The executive power is vested with the President which is the
power to enforce and administer law. He has control and
supervise over the executive department, bureaus and offices.
As per making laws it is vested with the Legislative Department
AO 308 acts in the nature of a law which is
beyond executive power. Only the legislative can
enact such a law of general effect.
The intent of Separation of power is to prevent
concentration to power and for check and balance
Calalang v. Williams 70
Phil. 726 (1940)
FACTS :
The Director of Public Works adopted a resolution of the National Traffic
Commission Chaired by AD Williams.

A resolution prohibiting animal drawn vehicle on some streets of Manila for a

certain period of time.

Maximo Calalang questioned this as an undue delegation of legislative power.

ISSUE:

Whether Commonwealth Act No. 548 is

unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power.
RULING:

NO, it is not an undue delegation of power

To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to

determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in
view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requirements of
public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be
directly discharged by the National Assembly
II. Separation of Powers
Planas v. Gil, G.R. No. L-
46440, January 18, 1939
FACT :

Publication of a statement made by the Carmenr Planas criticizing

the acts of certain government officials in connection with the
general election for Assemblymen.
The day after the publication of Planas' statement, she received a letter from the
President, through Secretary Vargas, ordering her to appear and explain herself
to the Commissioner of Civil Service regarding the statement she made.

Planas then contends that the respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate her
since it violates Article VII, Sec. 11 of the 1935 Constitution. She also said that
the President cannot delegate his power to any other person.
ISSUE:

(1)Whether or not the President can delegate his power

to Sec. Vargas, to the Commissioner of Civil Service

(2) Whether or not the respondent has

jurisdiction to investigate her.
RULING:

Yes the President can delegate his power, in this case Sec. Vargas serves as an
alter ego of the President being the Commissioner of Civil Service. One of the
powers granted to the Executive Branch is to investigate.

- power to exercise general supervision over all local governments and take
care the laws to be faithfully executed, and authorizes him to order an
investigation of the act or conduct of any public servants.
Occena v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. L-56350,
April 2, 1981
FACT :

Samuel Oceana and Ramon Gonzales, former delegate of the

Constitutional convention who framed the 1973 constitution.
Filed a case for the validity of Batasang Pambansa Resolution
Proposing Constitutional amendments
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Batasang Pambansa has the power

to propose amendments.
RULING:

Yes, Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments.

In the 1976 amendment it states that the Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have
the same powers and its members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, reights, privileges, and disqualification as the interim National
Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the member thereof

One of the power is Proposing amendments

 III. Creation,
Reorganization and
Abolition of Administrative
Agencies
Administrative and Election Laws with Public Officers

Claudio, Angelie B.
Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
112745, October 16, 1997
 Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies

Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

Petitioner Aquilino T. Larin seeks to assail the legality of Executive Order No. 132, which
mandates for the streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

He also claimed that the reorganization sought to be affected by the E.O. 132 is tainted in bad
faith in violation of the Section 2 or R.A. 6656 also known as the Act Protecting the Security of
Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government
Reorganization.
 Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

ISSUE:

Does the President have the power to reorganize the BIR or to issue the questioned Executive Order
No. 132?
 Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

The president has the power to reorganize under Presidential Decree No. 1772, which amended
Presidential Decree No. 1416.

● Expressly grants 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.
 Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

However, the court did not consider the Executive Order No. 127 as the legal basis for the
reorganization of the BIR.

● The said Executive Order should be related to the paragraph 2 of Section 11 of the Republic
Act No. 6656, which provides that in cases of the 1987 reorganization of the executive branch,
all authorized agencies and departments by executive orders promulgated by the President to
reorganize only have ninety days to implement their respective organization plans

Hence, the Executive Order No. 127, being part of the 1987 re-organization became stale as the
ninety-day period had expired. It cannot be used as a proper legal basis for reorganization.
 Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies

Other Legal Bases of the Presidential Authority to reorganize:

● Sections 48 and 62 of R.A. 7645

● Section 63 of E.O. No. 127
● Sec. 20, Book III of E.O. No. 292
 Creation, Reorganization and Abolition of Administrative Agencies

Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

The court found that the reorganization under Executive Order No. 132 was made in bad faith.

● Section 2 of R. A. No. 6656 provides that there is bad faith when there is a significant increase
in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned,
and when an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is
created.
 Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

Larin v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997

Under the E.O. 132, an Intelligence and Investigation Service is created to absorb the same
functions of the abolished office and service, which was the Intelligence and Investigation office
and Inspection Office.

The creation of services and divisions in the BIR resulting to a significant increase in the number of
positions in the said bureau.

The court ruled to reinstate Petitioner Larin to his position as Assistant Commissioner without loss
of Seniority rights and entitlement to full back wages from the time of separation.
Commission on Human Rights Employees
Association
v.
Commission on Human Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

Petitioner Commission on Human Rights Employee’s Association (CHREA) challenged the

decision of the Court of Appeals which sustained the validity of the upgrading and
reclassification of certain personnel positions in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
despite the disapproval by the Department of Budget and Management.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

Republic Act No. 8522, the General Appropriations Act of 1998, provided for the Special Provisions
Applicable to All Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy.

Using the Special Provisions as basis, the CHR promulgated a resolution adopting an upgrading and
reclassification scheme among selected positions in the Commission, as well as determination of
salaries and make adjustments in the personnel services itemization, including the transfer of item or
creation of new positions.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

The CHR forwarded the staffing modification scheme to the DBM for the latter’s approval but the
DBM Secretary Benjamin Diokno denied the request.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the pronouncement of CSC-Central Office which upheld the validity
of the upgrading, retitling and reclassification scheme in the CHR on the group that the said action
is within the scope of the CHR’s fiscal autonomy.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

ISSUE:

Can the Commission on Human Rights validly implement an upgrading, reclassification, creation
and collapsing of plantilla positions in the Commission without the prior approval of the
Department of Budget and Management?
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the Commission of Human Rights is exempt from the Salary
Standardization Law is flawed since it covers the entire government offices.

Salary Standardization Law provides that the DBM shall establish a unified Compensation and
Position Classification System.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

The Administrative Code of 1987 mandated the DBM to assist the President.

The DBM’s authority is hereby delegated by the Congress through the Salary Standardization Law,
as part of the checks and balances of the government, as well as the Administrative Code.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

The Court of Appeals’ decision was based on the mistaken premise that the CHR is a Constitutional
Commission.

There is no legal basis that supports the contention that CHR possesses fiscal autonomy.

The Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code only mentions the CSC,
Commission of Elections and Commission on Audit as the Constitutional Commissions, which
possesses right to fiscal autonomy.
 Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human
Rights,
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004

Being part of the offices that has the right to fiscal independence does not vest the agency the
authority to reclassify, upgrade and create positions without the approval of the DBM.
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010, G.R. No.
192935, Dec. 7, 2010
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

Two consolidated cases which assailed the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1,
dated July 30, 2010 entitled “Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010.

● Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the
President
● Tasked to submit findings and recommendation to the President, Congress, and the
Ombudsman,
● Not a quasi-judicial body.
● Cannot impose criminal, civil, or administrative penalties or sanctions.
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

Petitioners argue that the creation of public office lies within the authority of the Congress and not
with the Executive Branch of government. Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 grants
the President the authority to reorganize his office, but not permit the creation of public office.
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

ISSUE

Does the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission fall within the power of the President to
reorganize as expressed in Section 31 of the Revised Administrative Code?
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

The court ruled negative.

Section 31 of the Administrative code of 1987 contemplates “re-organization” by:

● Restructuring the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper

● Transferring any function to any other Department or Agency
● Transferring any agency under the Office of the President to any other agency or department.

In the said provision, creation of an office is nowhere mentioned as well as envisioned.

 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

The court found that the creation of PTC was justified under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, which imposes the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

The president is authorized to create bodies that would aid him in his power to conduct
investigations, which was done to ensure the faithful execution of laws.
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

Consequently, one of the recognized constitutionally mandated duty of the President is the power to
create ad hoc committees. Since there is an obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws
have been faithfully executed.
 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010,
G.R. No. 192935, Dec. 7, 2010

However, the Court declared the Executive Order No. 1 as unconstitutional for being violative of the
Equal Protection Clause. Said order creates an arbitrary classification since its subject of
investigation was the corrupt practices only during the Past Administration of Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, and not including the other past administrations that was similarly situated.
 Control over
Administrative Agencies

Administrative and Election Laws with Public Officers

Tuazon, Daniel M.
Carpio v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 96409, February 14, 1992

Pertinent Law Provisions or Doctrines

1. Article XVI of the Constitution
2. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency in rel. to Section 17, Article VII of the Const.
3. Article IX-A, Section 1
FACTS:

The petitioner, Antonio Carpio, filed a petition now at bar, assailing the
constitutionality of the RA 6975. AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
FACTS:

Petitioner Carpio’s contentions:

1. He said that the Act is unconstitutional as the PNP was placed under the
supervision of DILG.

2. The petitioner alleged the said Act limits the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) of its power of control over the Philippine National Police
(PNP) by vesting different powers to local executives and officials
FACTS:

3. He contends that the Act constitutes an intrusion and interference upon

the President’s commander-in-chief powers.
ISSUE:

Whether or not RA 6975 is unconstitutional

RULING:
The court ruled against the petitioner. The act was held valid.
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is the President’s power of control exercised by him
over the members of the Cabinet who in turn, by his authority, control the bureaus and
offices under their respective jurisdictions in the executive department. Further, under Sec.
17, Art. VII, the President was given the constitutional power of control over all Executive
Departments.

In this case, it is just that both NAPOLCOM and PNP are placed under the reorganized
Department of Interior and Local Government. The court explained that, The purpose of the
delegation is to strengthen a system of coordination and cooperation among the law
enforcement and public safety agencies created under the assailed Act.
RULING:

The Local Executives are only acting as representatives of the NAPOLCOM.

Thus, unless countermanded by the NAPOLCOM, their acts are valid and binding
as acts of the NAPOLCOM.
RULING:

The national police force does not fall under the Commander-in-Chief powers of
the President. This is necessarily so since the police force, not being integrated
with the military, is not a part of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As a
civilian agency of the government, it properly comes within, and is subject to,
the exercise by the President of the power of executive control..
RULING:

Furthermore, our Constitution created the constitutional commissions (CSC,

COA, COMELEC, CHR). Under Sec. 1, Art. IX-A, the constitution made these
constitutional bodies independent of the Executive.

In the case at bar, NAPOLCOM, being uncategorized as an independent agency,

may be controlled by the President thru his alter ego, such as in this case, the
Secretary of Interior and Local Government.

In the end, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
 Moran v. Office of the President, G.R.
No. 192957, September 29, 2014

Pertinent Law Provisions or Doctrines

1. Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 18
2. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution
FACTS:

The late Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed with the Consumer Arbitration Office
(CAO) a verified complaint against private respondent PGA Cars, Inc. pursuant
to the relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7394 (RA 7394), otherwise known
as the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The complaint alleged that the private
respondent should be held liable for the product imperfections of a BMW car
which it sold to complainant.

Subsequently, the CAO held PGA Cars, Inc. liable.

FACTS:

1. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the private respondent but was
denied by the CAO

2. The case was then appealed to DTI who furthered dismissed the appeal

3. The case was appealed to the Office of the President (OP) who then
granted the appeal and reversed the decision of DTI and holding the private
respondent PGA Cars, Inc. not liable for the alleged accusations against it.
FACTS:

Complainant filed a petition for certiorari with the CA and alleged lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the OP for ruling on cases involving a violation of RA
7394. However, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that it
was a wrong mode of appeal

Further the OP contends that the President’s power of control over the executive
departments grants him the power to amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of
the department secretaries.
ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in

denying the petition for certiorari filed by the
complainant-petitioner
RULING:

Yes. The CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

Under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Const., the power of control over all executive
departments was granted to the President. This includes the power of control to
amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of the department secretaries. However, it is
limited and subjected to certain exceptions.
RULING:

The Court held in this case, citing Sec. 1 of AO No. 18, “a decision or order issued
by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President
when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal.”
RULING:

In this case, the special law, RA 7394 and its provisions, expressly provided for
immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition
for certiorari with the "proper court" (Court of Appeals).

In filing a petition for certiorari before the CA raising the issue of the OP’s lack of
jurisdiction, complainant Moran, thus availed of the proper remedy.
 Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No.
109406, September 11, 1998

Pertinent Law Provisions or Doctrines

1. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution
FACTS:

On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 which granted each official
and employee of the government the productivity incentive benefits in a maximum
amount equivalent to 30% of the employee’s one month basic salary but which
amount not be less than P2,000.00. Said AO provided that the productivity
incentive benefits shall be granted only for the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of
agencies, including government boards of government-owned or controlled
corporations and financial institutions, are strictly prohibited from granting
productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 and future years pending the
result of a comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres.
FACTS:

The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government departments and
agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres.
Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992
in the maximum amount of P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO 268,
enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approval of the President.
Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices and agencies which authorized payment of
productivity incentive bonus for the year 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause
the refund of the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies
of the government concerned caused the deduction from petitioners’ salaries or allowances
of the amounts needed to cover the alleged overpayments.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Administrative Orders (AO. 29 and AO. 268) were issued in
the valid exercise of presidential control over the executive departments
RULING:

The President is the head of the government. Governmental power and authority
are exercised and implemented through him. His power includes the control of
executive departments as provided under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution.

When the President issued AO. 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits,
enjoining heads of government agencies from granting incentive benefits without
approval from him and directing the refund of the excess over the prescribed
amount, the President was just exercising his power of control over executive
departments.
RULING:

The Pres. was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the
heads of the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres., thereby
resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.
RULING:

The Pres. was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the
heads of the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres., thereby
resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.