G.R. No. 142801-802 - Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142801-802)

Respondents’ Position

The Solicitor General argues that:

The President possesses plenary executive power under Article VII §§ 1 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution, including reorganization authority.
Executive orders were issued in the interest of national economy, avoiding duplication and streamlining bureaucracy.
The EIIB was “deactivated,” not abolished, remaining a dormant office.

Jurisdiction and Procedural Considerations

Despite procedural defects (non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, hierarchy of courts), the Court invoked public interest and the need for stability in public service (Dario v. Mison) to entertain the petition.

Central Issues Identified

Does the President have authority to reorganize executive departments and offices?
If so, what are the limits and requirements for valid reorganization?

Distinction Between Deactivation and Abolition

“Deactivate” means to render an office inactive or ineffective without destroying its legal existence.
“Abolish” means to annul or destroy an office completely and permanently.
Both are reorganization measures, but abolition permanently eradicates the office whereas deactivation leaves it dormant.

Legislative Versus Executive Power to Abolish Offices

Generally, only the legislature may abolish offices created by statute, as creation and destruction of offices fall within its legislative power.
Exception: For executive-department offices, the President’s constitutional power of control and specific statutes may authorize reorganization, including deactivation, abolition, merger, or transfer of functions.

Precedent: Larin v. Executive Secretary

Larin affirmed presidential reorganization powers under:

RA 7645 § 48 (scaling down, phasing out, abolition upon Office of the President orders)
RA 7645 § 62 (President may direct organizational changes unless otherwise created by law)
EO 292 Book III § 20 (residual executive powers)
PD 1416 as amended by PD 1772 (continuing authority to reorganize national government, including abolishing offices, transferring functions)

Authority Under Executive Order No. 191

EO 191’s “whereas” clause invokes RA 8745 § 77, mirroring RA 7645 § 62, recognizing presidential authority to effect organizational changes. RA 8760 § 78 further directs heads of executive agencies to streamline operations, subject to presidential orders.

Administrative Code Grant of Continuing Authority

EO 292 Book III § 31 explicitly grants the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President and, by extension, attaché bureaus such as EIIB, to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency.

Validity of Reorganization: Good Faith Requirement

Under jurisprudence and RA 6656, a reorganization is valid if pursued in good faith for economy and efficiency. Bad faith indicators include significant increases in positions, abolition and re-creation of identical functions, replacement by less qualified incumbents, improper classification, and procedural violations.

Good Faith in EIIB Deactivation and Task Force Creation

The Task Force “Aduana” uses existing government personnel on detail from PSG and ISAFP, creating no new permanent positions or additional costs.
Task Force “Aduana” consolidates anti-smuggling efforts under direct presidential supervision, promoting economy by utilizing existing agency resources and eliminating EIIB’s separate regional offices.
Budget data show EIIB’s annual appropriations (P128M to P238M from 1995–1999) far exceeded the Task Force’s P50M allocation for 2000, indicating genuine cost reduction.

Functional and Powers Comparison

While Task Force “Aduana” assumes EIIB’s core anti-smuggling functions, it also possesses enhan

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142801-802)

Factual Background

On January 30, 1987, by Executive Order No. 127, President Corazon C. Aquino created the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) under the Ministry of Finance to gather intelligence on economic crimes and coordinate investigations and prosecutions.
Memorandum Order No. 225 (March 17, 1989) designated EIIB as the primary agency for anti-smuggling operations in all land and inland water areas outside the Bureau of Customs’ sole jurisdiction.
Eleven years later, President Joseph Estrada issued:
- Executive Order No. 191 (January 7, 2000) deactivating EIIB and transferring its functions to the Bureau of Customs and the National Bureau of Investigation, citing overlapping duties among agencies.
- Executive Order No. 196 (January 12, 2000) creating the Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force “Aduana.”
- Executive Order No. 223 (March 29, 2000) deemed specified EIIB personnel separated effective April 30, 2000, pursuant to reorganization.

Procedural History

Petitioners—EIIB employees acting individually and on behalf of similarly situated workers—filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and violation of security of tenure.
Respondents include the Executive Secretary, Secretaries of Finance, Budget and Management, and Justice, and the Task Force “Aduana.”
The Solicitor General defended the validity of E.O. Nos. 191 and 223 as legitimate exercises of executive power.
Despite procedural irregularities (failure to exhaust administrative remedies, disregard of court hierarchy), the Court proceeded to address the merits due to the public interest in clarifying the status of a public office.

Issues

Whether the “deactivation” of EIIB under E.O. No. 191 constitutes an “abolition” of a public office in violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Whether the President has the constitutional authority to reorganize or abolish an executive bureau.
Whether the reorganization was carried out in bad faith and thus violated petitioners’ right to security of tenure.

Petitioners’ Arguments

E.O. Nos. 191 and 223 are unconstitutional as they violate Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution by usurping Congress’s power to abolish offices.
The deactivation was a sham designed to favor the newly created Task Force “Aduana,” performing essentially the same functio