Case Digest (G.R. No. 193978)
Facts:
Petitioner Jelbert B. Galicto, a Court Attorney IV at Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for injunctive relief in the Supreme Court to nullify and enjoin Executive Order No. 7 (EO 7) issued by President Benigno S. C. Aquino III on September 8, 2010, which took effect September 25, 2010, imposed a moratorium on salary increases for GOCCs/GFIs and temporarily suspended board allowances until December 31, 2010. Respondents Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. and Florencio B. Abad were impleaded in their official capacities; Congress thereafter enacted R.A. No. 10149 (GOCC Governance Act of 2011), and the Court resolved the petition on procedural grounds and mootness.Issues:
- Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge EO 7?
- Does Petitioner have locus standi to assail EO 7 as a PhilHealth employee and member of the Bar?
- Was EO 7 issued beyond the President's authority or otherwise unconstituti
Case Digest (G.R. No. 193978)
Facts:
- Parties and their capacities
- Jelbert B. Galicto was a Filipino citizen and employee of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) serving as Court Attorney IV at PhilHealth Regional Office CARAGA.
- Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III was the President of the Republic of the Philippines and the issuer of Executive Order No. 7 (EO 7).
- Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. was the Executive Secretary, tasked as the alter ego of the President to implement EO 7.
- Florencio B. Abad was Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), charged with implementing EO 7.
- Antecedent events leading to EO 7
- On July 26, 2010, the President in his State of the Nation Address publicly disclosed alleged excessive allowances, bonuses and other benefits granted by certain GOCCs and GFIs.
- The Senate Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises conducted inquiries revealing unwarranted allowances, bonuses, incentives, stock options and other irregular practices by GOCCs and GFIs.
- The Senate issued Senate Resolution No. 17 urging the President to order the immediate suspension of unusually large and apparently excessive allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of GOCC and GFI governing board members.
- Issuance and content of EO 7
- On September 8, 2010, the President issued Executive Order No. 7, Directing the Rationalization of the Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), and for Other Purposes.
- EO 7 created a Task Force to review all remunerations of GOCC and GFI employees and officers and ordered GOCCs and GFIs to submit compensation information to the Task Force.
- EO 7 imposed (a) a moratorium on increases in salaries and other forms of compensation (Section 9) except for salary adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900, until specifically authorized by the President; and (b) a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of members of Boards of Directors/Trustees until December 31, 2010 (Section 10).
- EO 7 set forth guiding principles, a total compensation framework and standards for compensation and position classification in GOCCs and GFIs.
- EO 7 was published on September 10, 2010 and took effect on September 25, 2010.
- Procedural posture and respondents’ actions
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeking to nullify and enjoin EO 7.
- Respondents filed a Comment asserting multiple procedural defects and substantive defenses; they argued that the President had authority to control GOCC and GFI c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural and justiciability issues
- Whether a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge EO 7 or whether declaratory relief under Rule 63 filed with the Regional Trial Court was the proper recourse.
- Whether Petitioner had locus standi to challenge EO 7 as an individual PhilHealth employee and as a member of the bar in good standing.
- Whether the petition suffered fatal formal defects: failure to attach an authorizing board resolution from PhilHealth, missing counsel identification details, and a defective jurat in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
- Whether the President was a proper party given claims of Presidential immunity from suit.
- Substantive constitutional and statutory issues raised by petitioner
- Whether EO 7 was issued without legal basis, including claims that P.D. 985 and Joint Resolution No. 4 were inapplicable or insufficient to delegate power to suspend compensation authority of GOCC boards.
- Whether EO 7 unlawfully divested GOCC boards of their legislatively granted power to fix compensation.
- Whether EO 7 was, in substance, a legislative enactment and thus an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power.
- Whether EO 7 was *ultra vires* in suspending and imposing a moratorium absent express authorization in Joint Resolution No. 4.
- Whether EO 7 lacked sufficient standards and thus was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of substantive due process.
- Whether EO 7 involved unlawful delegation or determination of what the law shall be, thereby usurping legislative power.
- Whether EO 7 was only directory and not mandatory, per Pimentel v. Aguirre...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)