FIRST DIVISION
MALARIA EMPLOYEES AND G.R. No. 160093
WORKERS ASSOCIATION OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, INC. (MEWAP),
represented
by its National President,
DR.
RAMON A. SULLA, and MEWAP
DOH
Central Office Chapter President,
DR.
GRACELA FIDELA MINA-RAMOS,
and
PRISCILLA CARILLO, and
HERMINIO
JAVIER,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - sandoval-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
the honorable executive
SECRETARY
ALBERTO ROMULO,
(substituting
the former Executive
Secretary
Renato de Villa), THE
HONORABLE
SECRETARY OF Promulgated:
HEALTH
MANUEL DAYRIT
and
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF
BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT
EMILIA
T. BONCODIN,
Respondents. July
31, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65475 dated September 12, 2003 which
upheld the validity of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 102,[1] the
law Redirecting the Functions and Operations of the Department of Health. Then
President Joseph E. Estrada issued E.O. No. 102 on
On
The
DBM, on
On
July 24, 2000, the Secretary of Health issued Department Memorandum No. 136, Series
of 2000, ordering the Undersecretary, Assistant Secretaries, Bureau or Service
Directors and Program Managers of the Department of Health to direct all
employees under their respective offices to accomplish and submit the Personal
Information Sheet due to the approval of the Department of Health –
Rationalization and Streamlining Plan.
On
On
Pursuant to the Notice of
Organization, Staffing and Compensation Action (NOSCA) approved by the DBM on
All personnel are hereby directed to
report to their new assignments on or before
All Heads of Office/Unit in the
Department of Health are hereby directed to facilitate the implementation of
E.O. 102, to include[,] among others, the transfer or movement of personnel,
properties, records and documents to appropriate office/unit and device other
necessary means to minimize disruption of office functions and delivery of
health services.
Appeals, oversights, issues and
concerns of personnel related to this Placement List shall be made in writing
using the Appeals Form (available at the Administrative Service) addressed to
the Appeals Committee chaired by Dr. Gerardo Bayugo. All Appeals Forms shall be
submitted to the Re-Engineering Secretariat xxx not later than
Petitioner Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the
Philippines, Inc. (MEWAP) is a union of affected employees in the Malaria
Control Service of the Department of Health. MEWAP filed a complaint, docketed
as Civil Case No. 00-98793, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila seeking to
nullify Department Memorandum No. 157, the NOSCA and the Placement List of Department
of Health Personnel and other issuances implementing E.O. No. 102.
On
1. Whether Sections 78 and 80 of the
General Provision of Republic Act No. 8522, otherwise known as the General
Appropriation[s] Act of 1998[,] empower former President Joseph E. Estrada to
reorganize structurally and functionally the Department of Health.
2. Whether Section 20, Chapter I, title i,
Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides legal basis in
reorganizing the Department of Health.
(A) Whether
Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, has
been repealed.
3. Whether the President has authority
under Section 17, Article VIII of the Constitution to effect a reorganization
of a department under the executive branch.
4. Whether there has been abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of former
President Joseph E. Estrada in issuing Executive Order No. 102, Redirecting the
functions and operations of the Department of Health.
5. Whether Executive Order No. 102 is null
and void.[6]
We deny the petition.
The President has the authority to carry out a reorganization
of the Department of Health under the Constitution and statutory laws. This authority is an adjunct
of his power of control under Article VII, Sections 1 and 17 of the 1987
Constitution, viz.:
Section
1. The executive power shall be
vested in the President of the
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
In
Canonizado v. Aguirre,[7]
we held that reorganization “involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation
of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
functions.” It alters the existing structure of government offices or units
therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between
them.[8]
While the power to abolish an office is generally lodged with the legislature,
the authority of the President to reorganize the executive branch, which may
include such abolition, is permissible under our present laws, viz.:
The general rule has always
been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from
the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy. A public office is either created by the
Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office
was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same
legislature that brought it into existence.
The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies
or offices in the executive department are concerned, the President’s power of
control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or
certain laws may grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization
measures.[9]
The
President’s power to reorganize the executive branch is also an exercise of his
residual powers under Section 20, Title I, Book III of E.O. No. 292 which grants
the President broad organization powers to implement reorganization measures, viz.:
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.[10]
We explained the nature of the President’s residual powers
under this section in the case of Larin v. Executive Secretary, [11]
viz.:
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 [is]
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.[12]
The pertinent provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 1416, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772, clearly
support the President’s continuing power to reorganize the executive
branch, viz.:
1.
The President of the
x x x
b)
Abolish departments, offices, agencies or functions which may not be necessary,
or create those which are necessary, for the efficient conduct of government
functions, services and activities;
c) Transfer functions, appropriations, equipment,
properties, records and personnel from one department, bureau, office, agency
or instrumentality to another;
d)
Create, classify, combine, split, and abolish positions;
e)
Standardize salaries, materials, and equipment;
f)
Create, abolish, group, consolidate, merge, or integrate entities, agencies,
instrumentalities, and units of the National Government, as well as expand,
amend, change, or otherwise modify their powers, functions, and authorities,
including, with respect to government-owned or controlled corporations, their
corporate life, capitalization, and other relevant aspects of their charters;
g)
Take such other related actions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
and objectives of this Decree.
Petitioners argue that the residual powers of the President under
Section 20, Title I, Book III of E.O. No. 292 refer only to the Office of the
President and not to the departments, bureaus or offices within the executive
branch. They invoke Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of the same law,
viz.:
Section
31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. – The
President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. x x x
The interpretation of
petitioners is illogically restrictive and lacks legal basis. The residual
powers granted to the President under Section 20, Title I, Book III are too broad
to be construed as having a sole application to the Office of the
President. As correctly stated by respondents, there is nothing in E.O. No. 292
which provides that the continuing authority should apply only to the Office of
the President.[13]
If such was the intent of the law, the same should have been expressly stated.
To adopt the argument of petitioners would result to two conflicting provisions
in one statute. It is a
basic canon of statutory construction that in
interpreting a statute, care should be taken that every part thereof be given
effect, on the theory that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a
hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. The rule is that a construction that
would render a provision inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently
inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever possible as parts of a coordinated
and harmonious whole.[14]
In
fact, as pointed out by respondents, the President’s power to reorganize the
executive department even finds further basis under Sections 78 and 80 of R.A.
No. 8522, viz.:[15]
Section
78. Organizational Changes – Unless otherwise provided by law or directed by
the President of the
Section
80. Scaling Down and Phase-out of Activities of Agencies within the Executive
Branch – The heads of departments, bureaus, 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. Said activities shall
be reported to the Office of the President through the Department of Budget and
Management and to the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Chairman, Committee on Finance of the Senate. Actual
scaling down, phase-out or abolition of the activities shall be effected
pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the
President.
Petitioners contend that Section 78 refers only to changes
in “organizational units” or “key positions” in any department or agency, while
Section 80 refers merely to scaling down and phasing out of “activities” within
the executive department. They argue that neither section authorizes
reorganization. Thus, the realignment of the appropriations to implement the
reorganization of the Department of Health under E.O. No. 102 is illegal.
Again, petitioners’ construction of the law is unduly
restrictive. This Court has consistently held in Larin[16]
and Buklod ng Kawanihang EIIB v.
Be that as it may, the President must exercise good faith in carrying out the reorganization
of any branch or agency of the executive department. Reorganization is effected
in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more
efficient.[18] R.A. No.
6656[19] provides
for the circumstances which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the
removal of civil service employees made as a result of reorganization, to wit:
(a) where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in
the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned; (b) where
an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same
functions is created; (c) where incumbents are replaced by those less
qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and merit; (d) where
there is a classification of offices in the department or agency concerned and
the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the
original offices; and (e) where the removal violates the order of
separation.
We
agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the President did not commit
bad faith in the questioned reorganization, viz.:
In
this particular case, there is no showing that the reorganization undertaking
in the [Department of Health] had violated this requirement, nor [are] there
adequate allegations to that effect. It is only alleged that the petitioners
were directly affected by the reorganization ordered under E.O. [No.] 102.
Absent is any showing that bad faith attended the actual implementation of the
said presidential issuance.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, the
petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 65475 dated
Costs
against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
[1] Annex B; Rollo, 68-72.
[2] Annex
E, Petition;
[3] Annex
F, Petition;
[4] An Act to Protect the Security of
Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of
Government Reorganization. Approved on
[5] Annex
G, Petition; Rollo, 190-248.
[6] Petition,
8-9; id. at 16-17.
[7] G.R.
No. 133132,
[8] See
Buklod ng Kawanihang EIIB v. Zamora,
G.R. Nos. 142801-802,
[9] Ibid. Citations
omitted.
[10] Emphasis
supplied.
[11] G.R. No.
112745,
[12] Ibid. Emphases
supplied. Citations omitted.
[13] Comment,
31; Rollo, 365.
[14] Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CA,
G.R. No. 114323, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 26, citing JMM Promotions & Management, Inc. v. NLRC,
228 SCRA 129, 134 (1993).
[15] Sections
78 and 80 were reproduced in The General Appropriations Act of 1999 and 2000.
[16] Supra Note 11.
[17] Supra Note 8.
[18] Department of Trade and Industry v. The Chairman
and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 96739,
[19] Supra
Note 4.