Case Digest (G.R. No. 196425)
Facts:
Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, G.R. No. 196425, July 24, 2012, Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. (Chairman, LWUA) sought certiorari and prohibition and prayed for a temporary restraining order to declare Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13) unconstitutional and to enjoin respondents from administratively proceeding against him under that order. Respondents named the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA) Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD‑ODESLA), Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., and Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima (as complainant to IAD‑ODESLA).
The antecedent administrative framework: on April 16, 2001 President Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo issued E.O. 12, creating the Presidential Anti‑Graft Commission (PAGC) with authority to investigate or hear administrative cases against presidential appointees and to submit reports and recommendations to the President. On November 15, 2010 President Benigno S. Aquino III issued E.O. 13, abolishing the PAGC and transferring its investigative, adjudicatory and recommendatory functions to the ODESLA by creating within it the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD‑ODESLA); the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs would be the recommending authority to the President through the Executive Secretary. E.O. 13 cited among its bases Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) and Section 78 of R.A. No. 9970 (GAA 2010).
On April 6, 2011 Secretary Purisima filed with the newly created IAD‑ODESLA a complaint affidavit for grave misconduct against petitioner and several LWUA board members arising from LWUA's purchase of shares in Express Savings Bank, Inc. On April 14, 2011 Executive Secretary Ochoa issued an order requiring petitioner to submit a sworn written explanation; petitioner moved to dismiss and invoked a pending Ombudsman case (Rustico B. Tutol v. Pichay, OMB‑C‑A‑10‑0426‑I). Alleging absence of an adequate remedy, petitioner filed the present petition asserting six constitutional grounds challenging E.O. 13 (creation/usurpation of office, appropria...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did E.O. 13 usurp the Legislature’s power to create a public office by creating the IAD‑ODESLA?
- Did E.O. 13 usurp the Legislature’s power to appropriate funds for the IAD‑ODESLA?
- Did E.O. 13 unlawfully delegate or usurp quasi‑judicial powers reserved to the Judiciary or to agencies expressly authorized by Congress?
- Did E.O. 13 encroach upon the powers of the Ombudsman by interfering with its primary jurisdiction?
- Did E.O. 13 and the IAD‑ODESLA’s actions violate petitioner’s right to due process?
- Did E.O. 13 violate the Equal Protection Clause by ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)