ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. Nos. 142801-802.February 19, 2002]
BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, et al., vs. HON. EXEC. SEC. ZAMORA, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 19 2002.
G.R. Nos. 142801-802(Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB, Cesar Posada, Remedios G. Prinsesa, Benjamin Y. Kho, Benigno Manga, Lulu Mendoza, petitioners, vs. Hon. Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, Hon. Secretary Jose Pardo, Department of Finance, Hon. Secretary Benjamin Diokno, Department of Budget and Management, Hon. Secretary Artemio Tuquero, Department of Justice, respondents.)
At bar is a Motion for Reconsideration [1] cralaw of the Decision [2] cralaw dated July 10, 2001 upholding as a valid reorganization measure the deactivation by former President Joseph E. Estrada of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) through Executive Order No. 191. [3] cralaw
Petitioners anchor their present bid for a favorable decision on the following grounds:
A.
The Honorable Court Seriously Erred in Holding that the deactivation of the EIIB Was Done in Good Faith by Former President Joseph Estrada
B.
The Honorable Court Seriously Erred in Holding that the Purpose in the Deactivation of the EIIB and the Creation of Task Force Aduana was to Achieve Economy
C.
The Honorable Court Seriously Erred in Holding that the President has the Power to Abolish EIIB, a Bureau Under the Department of Finance.
In elucidation, petitioners contend that:
First, the proximate cause of the deactivation of EIIB is not economy but the displeasure of Estrada over EIIB's act of confiscating the smuggled goods belonging to his friend. [4] cralaw
Second, bad faith is show when, five (5) months after the deactivation of EIIB, Executive Order No. 259 [5] cralaw was issued activating the Central Management Information Office (CMIO) in the Department of Finance and integrating the appropriate positions of the EIIB in said office and in the Bureau of Customs.
And third, the President has no power to reorganize bureaus, agencies or offices that are created by law.Since EIIB was created by President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative power under the Freedom Constitution, it follows that it can be abolished only through legislation.
In his Comment, the Solicitor General argues that: a) courts cannot inquire into the particular motive of the President in issuing executive orders; b) Congress ratified E.O. No. 191 when it passed Republic Act No. 8760 [6] cralaw appropriating the amount of P44,922,000.00 for the specific purpose of winding up the activities and operations of EIIB; c) the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ratified E.O. No. 191 when it did not pass a new executive order superseding or amending it; d) the activation of the CMIO is not an indicum of bad faith since it is an office created under E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as "The Administrative Code of 1987," and its intended function is merely "to absorb the residual functions of EIIB to fully support the information requirements of the Office of the Secretary of Finance"; and e) the President has the power to deactivate the EIIB.
The motion must be denied.
A second hard look at the issues raised by petitioners reveals that we are asked to consider for the first time the following matters:
1) whether or not former President Estrada was prompted by personal vengeance in deactivating the EIIB; and
2) whether or not the subsequent activation of CMIO is an indicum of bad faith.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on this Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon therefor in much the same way that this Court does in its judgment or final order as regards the issues raised and submitted for decision.In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, [7] cralaw we ruled that, "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant; and it would be needless act, too, with respect to issues raised for the first time, these being x x x deemed waived because (they were) not asserted at the first opportunity."In pleadings and practice, it is axiomatic that no new issue in a case can be raised in a pleading which by due diligence could have been raised in previous pleadings. [8] cralaw Otherwise, attainment of finality of a judgment might be staved off indefinitely, depending on the party's profundity or ingenuity in conceptualizing and formulating additional flaws or newly discovered errors.
In the case at bar, not only are we precluded from delving on the above-mentioned matters because they are entirely "new grounds," but also because they involve questions of facts.We can do no better than to maintain a hands-off stance in these "new grounds," for a different approach would lead this Court astray into the field of factual conflict where its legal pronouncements would not rest on solid grounds.Time and again we have ruled that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, [9] cralaw more so, in the consideration of an extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor even of law are entertained but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. [10] cralaw
Still and all, we need to reiterate our ruling on the authority of the President to reorganize the Executive Department in view of petitioners' insistence that the President does not possess such power.
To disabuse the minds of petitioners, it must be stated at this juncture that the President's deactivation of EIIB is not without legal anchorage.Of course, the general rule has always been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature, it being deemed included in the legislative's power to create.However, as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive department are concerned, the legislature may delegate to the President the authority, within statutory parameters, to carry out reorganization measures. [11] cralaw Thus, in the final analysis, the abolition or deactivation of the office shall has its mooring on legislative authority.We find support in the 1997 case of Larin v. Executive Secretary, [12] cralaw to wit:
"Initially, it is argued that there is no law yet which empowers the President to issue E.O. No. 132 or to reorganize the BIR.
We do not agree.
x x x���������������� x x x
Section 48 of R.A. 7645 provides that:
'Section 48.Scaling Down and Phase Out of Activities of Agencies Within the Executive Branch. - The heads of departments, bureaus and offices and agencies are hereby directed to identify their respective activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of public services and which may be scaled down, phased out or abolished, subject to civil service rules and regulations.x x x.Actual scaling down, phasing out or abolition of the activities shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the President.'
Said provision clearly mentions the acts of "scaling down, phasing out and abolition" of offices only and does not cover the creation of offices or transfer of functions.Nevertheless, the act creating and decentralizing is included in the subsequent provision of Section 62 which provides that:
'Sec. 62. Unauthorized organizational charges. - Unless otherwise created by law or directed by the President of the Philippines, no organizational unit or changes in key positions in any department or agency shall be authorized in their respective organizational structures and be funded from appropriations by this Act.'
The foregoing provision evidently shows that the President is authorized to effect organizational changes including the creation of offices in the department or agency concerned.
x x x���������������� x x x
Another legal basis of E.O. No. 132 is Section 20, Book III of E.O. No. 292 which states:
'Sec. 20.Residual Powers. - Unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law.'
This provision speaks of such other powers vested in the President under the law.What law then gives him the power to reorganize?It is Presidential Decree No. 1772 which amended Presidential Decree No. 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. 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.So far, there is yet no law amending or repealing said decrees.Significantly, the Constitution itself recognizes future reorganizations in the government as what is revealed in Sec. 16 of Article XVIII, thus:
'Sec. 16.Career civil service employees separated from service not for cause but as a result of the x x x reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate separation pay x x x.'"
The foregoing pronouncement is clear and unequivocal.We see no reason to deviate from it.In our jurisdiction, the doctrine of stare decisis reigns supreme.Article 8 of the Civil Code ordains that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself overruled, and a different view is adopted, that a new doctrine may be applied prospectively. [13] cralaw
In view of the foregoing, the motion is hereby DENIED.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Dated August 13, 2001, Rollo, p. 291.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 325.
[3] cralaw Otherwise known as the "Deactivation of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau."
[4] cralaw In support, petitioners quote the testimony of Edgardo Espiritu, former Secretary of Finance, to wit:
"SEN. FLAVIER.Eh yung tungkol sa smuggling sa Bureau of Customs, isa ba ito sa naging dahilan kung bakit nagbitiw ka?
MR. ESPIRITU:Eh yun pong smuggling, eh while this has been going for many, many years, eh nakita ko po lamang ang laki ng smuggling activity noong ako po ay mapapasok sa Department of Finance.At ang mabigat po rito eh napakaraming mga tao na nakikita ko naman po sa mga social activities at kung minsan po ay sa Malacanang na nasa mga listahan ng mga involved po sa smuggling.Meron pa nga hong nahuling, alam kong smuggling.major smuggling of rice, sugar and fertilizer na nahuli ng EIIB, ngunit po gusto ko ngang ma-abolish po ang EIIB, pero na-abolish sa maling paraan.Sapagkat po yung pagka-abolish ng EIIB ay dahil po sa mukhang ang nahuli po ay medyo malapit sa pamahalaan."
[5] cralaw "Activating the Central Management Information Office in the Department of Finance and Integrating the Appropriate Positions of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau in Said Office and the Bureau of Customs and for Other Purposes."Rollo, p. 309.
[6] cralaw General Appropriations Act of 2000.
[7] cralaw 254 SCRA 234 (1996).
[8] cralaw Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 495 (1999).
[9] cralaw La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory v. Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, 123 SCRA 679 (1983); Bad faith or negligence is a question of fact and is evidentiary.It has been held that bad faith does not connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty thru some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[National Food Authority v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 700 (1999)].
[10] cralaw Cruz v. People, 233 SCRA 439 (1994).
[11] cralaw See pages 7 and 8 of the Decision.
[12] cralaw 280 SCRA 713 (1997).
[13] cralaw Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
