Case Digest (G.R. No. 166052)
Facts:
Anak Mindanao Party-List Group and Mamalo Descendants Organization, Inc. v. The Executive Secretary and the Secretary of Agrarian/Land Reform, G.R. No. 166052, August 29, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were Anak Mindanao Party-List Group (AMIN) (represented by Rep. Mujiv S. Hataman) and Mamalo Descendants Organization, Inc. (MDOI) (represented by Romy Pardi); respondents were the Executive Secretary (Eduardo R. Ermita) and the Secretary of Agrarian/Land Reform (Rene C. Villa).In 2004 the President issued Executive Order No. 364 (September 27, 2004), which declared the transformation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) into the Department of Land Reform (DLR) and provided that the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) would be placed under the supervision and control of the Department and that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) would be placed under its supervision and control. A month later the President issued Executive Order No. 379 (October 26, 2004) amending EO No. 364 to make the NCIP an attached agency of the Department and to preserve the Chairperson’s rank and salary.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of E.O. Nos. 364 and 379 on grounds including violation of separation of powers, inconsistency with the constitutional scheme for agrarian reform/urban land reform/indigenous peoples’ rights, and failure to secure adequate consultation. By Resolution dated December 6, 2005 the Court gave due course to the petition and required memoranda, which the parties filed in March–April 2006.
Subsequently the alleged transformation of DAR into DLR became moot when the Department was renamed back to DAR by Executive Order No. 456 (August 23, 2005). The Court therefore proceeded only to decide the legality of placing the PCUP under DAR supervision and designating the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to challenge E.O. Nos. 364 and 379?
- Did the President exceed his constitutional or statutory authority, or otherwise violate the Constitution, by placing the PCUP under the supervision and control of DAR and by making the NCIP an attached agency of DAR through E.O. Nos. 364 and 379?
- Do the challenged executive orders violate the constitutional scheme for agrarian/urban/ancestral-domain reform or the people’s right to effective participation throug...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)