G.R. No. 46440 - Planas vs. Gil

Carmen Planas, then member of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, published on November 17, 1938 in La Vanguardia a statement criticizing government officials and the President’s intervention in the November 8 election for the National Assembly.
Her statement alleged that the administration used government machinery, fraud, and violations of civil service rules to defeat the opposition and suggested a scheme to amend the Constitution for presidential reelection.

On November 18 1938, by authority of the President (letter signed by Jorge B. Vargas), Planas was directed to appear before the Commissioner of Civil Service on November 22 to prove her charges, failing which suspension or removal would follow.
Planas and her counsel objected to the Commissioner’s jurisdiction; the Commissioner reserved ruling on jurisdiction to November 26 and proceeded to schedule further hearings.
On November 25 1938, Planas filed in the Supreme Court an original petition for prohibition and for a preliminary injunction; the injunction was denied. She amended her petition on December 2 alleging lack of jurisdiction, unconstitutionality of the investigation, and violation of her free‐speech rights. The Solicitor-General answered, invoking presidential power under Article VII, Section 11(1) of the Constitution and Section 64(c) of the Administrative Code.

The Government contended that executive orders of purely administrative character (Annexes A and C) are immune from judicial review under the doctrine of separation of powers.
Petitioner challenged that claim, and the Supreme Court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the writ of prohibition against an executive officer acting without or in excess of jurisdiction.

Does the Supreme Court have authority to entertain a writ of prohibition against the Commissioner of Civil Service’s investigation under a presidential order?
Can executive orders of purely administrative character be reviewed by the judiciary, or are they immune under separation of powers?

Does the President possess constitutional authority (Art. VII, Sec. 11[1]) and statutory authority (Admin. Code, Sec. 64[c]) to order an investigation of Planas?
Has Section 64(c) of the Administrative Code been repealed or rendered inconsistent with the Constitution?

May an elective municipal official be subjected to an administrative investigation for statements made as a private citizen on political matters?
Does the investigation violate Planas’s free-speech rights or exceed the grounds for administrative discipline under existing law?