Case Summary (G.R. No. 197422)
Petitions and Procedural History
G.R. No. 197422 (Lagman) and G.R. No. 197950 (Pichay) were both filed in mid-2011. Lagman’s petition seeks certiorari and prohibition; Pichay’s adds a prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Court consolidated the cases, invited memoranda, and heard arguments on standing, justiciability, and merits.
Statutory Framework of RA 10149
RA 10149 aims to promote fiscal discipline and align GOCC operations with national development policy. Key provisions:
• Section 2 declares State policy on GOCC ownership and performance oversight.
• Section 4 extends coverage to all GOCCs, GFIs, and government instrumentalities with corporate powers, but excludes BSP, state universities and colleges, cooperatives, local water districts, economic zone authorities, and certain research institutions.
• Section 5 creates the GCG under the Office of the President with powers to evaluate, reorganize, merge, abolish, or privatize GOCCs, and to develop a standardized compensation and classification system.
• Section 17 fixes GOCC board members’ terms at one year and limits incumbents’ tenure to June 30, 2011.
• Sections 8–9 and 23 empower the GCG, subject to presidential approval, to establish compensation and position‐classification schemes and set directors’ allowances.
• Sections 30 and 32 provide for suppletory application of charters and explicit repeal of inconsistent provisions.
Petitioners’ Constitutional Claims
- Security of Tenure: Pre-termination or shortening of fixed‐term appointments violates Article IX-B, Section 2(3) of the 1987 Constitution.
- Undue Delegation: Delegation to the GCG of power to abolish or reorganize chartered GOCCs and to fix compensation constitutes an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power.
- Supplantation of CSC: The GCG’s roles infringe on the Civil Service Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over merits, qualifications, and appointments.
- Equal Protection: Excluding certain entities from coverage lacks a rational basis and creates arbitrary classifications.
- Charter Supremacy: As a general law, RA 10149 cannot amend or override special GOCC charters without express legislative intent.
Respondents’ Defenses
• Justiciability and Standing: No actual case or ripeness; petitioners lack personal, direct injuries. Legislators may not invoke standing absent impairment of specific legislative prerogatives.
• Presumption of Constitutionality: Doubts resolve in favor of legislative enactments.
• Legislative Power: Congress has authority to modify, abolish, or reorganize statutory offices in good faith and may delegate fact‐finding and rule‐making functions within clearly defined standards (completeness and sufficient standard tests).
• Distinct Roles: The CSC retains its role as central personnel agency; the GCG’s mandate concerns corporate governance and performance evaluation, not merit examinations or personnel discipline.
• Rational Basis for Exclusions: Excluded entities possess unique constitutional or statutory autonomy (e.g., BSP’s monetary independence, SUCs under CHED oversight, cooperative self-management, local water districts under LMWUA, and self-sustaining economic zone authorities).
• Legislative Intent: Repealing clauses and explicit charter‐modification provisions manifest Congress’s intent to supersede inconsistent charter provisions.
Issues for Determination
- Justiciability and locus standi under Article VIII of the Constitution.
- Compliance with the judicial hierarchy and exceptions permitting direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
- Validity of legislative delegation to the GCG under non-delegation principles.
- Constitutionality of term reductions in light of security of tenure guarantees.
- Scope of CSC jurisdiction versus GCG functions.
- Equal protection analysis of statutory exclusions.
- Authority of a general law to amend or repeal special charters.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
• Justiciability and Standing: Lagman failed to show injury to specific legislative prerogatives; Pichay’s claims became moot upon his separation from office. However, the Court exercised discretion under public-interest exceptions to address merits.
• Hierarchy of Courts: Direct petitions were permitted given urgency, public importance, and precedentia
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197422)
Facts
- Two petitions—G.R. No. 197422 (Lagman) and G.R. No. 197950 (Pichay)—consolidated to challenge Republic Act No. 10149 (GOCC Governance Act of 2011).
- Congressional inquiries revealed GOCC abuses: “obscene bonuses,” excessive retirement schemes (e.g., MECO directors retiring after two years at ₱600,000/year), mounting debt, large inter-agency receivables, and subsidies exceeding tax liabilities.
- RA 10149 aims to optimize State ownership in GOCCs, align operations with national policies, and create the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) under the Office of the President.
- GCG empowered to evaluate, reorganize, merge, streamline, abolish, or privatize GOCCs; conduct performance evaluations; and develop a unified compensation and position classification system.
- Lagman’s Rule 65 petition (July 15, 2011) and Pichay’s certiorari/prohibition petition with injunction (August 22, 2011) allege violations of security of tenure, undue delegation, usurpation of Civil Service Commission (CSC) powers, equal protection breach, and improper amendment of special GOCC charters.
Issues
- Whether the petitions present justiciable issues and satisfy jurisdictional requirements.
- Whether direct resort to the Supreme Court violates the hierarchy-of-courts rule.
- Whether RA 10149 unduly delegates legislative power to the GCG and the President (reorganization, abolition, compensation).
- Whether RA 10149 violates the security of tenure of GOCC officials.
- Whether the GCG duplicates or supplants the CSC’s constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether RA 10149’s coverage and exclusions violate equal protection.
- Whether RA 10149, a general law, validly amends or repeals special GOCC charters.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Lagman:
- Actual case and standing as legislator; “transcendental importance” excuses hierarchy.
- Section 17 pre-terminates or shortens fixed-term appointments without cause or due process (security of tenure violation).
- Section 5 unduly delegates to GCG and President exclusive legislative powers to reorganize, abolish, privatize GOCCs; lacks sufficient standards.
- Sections 5(h), 8, 9, 23 delegate Congress’s power to fix GOCC compensation and allowances.
- GCG supplants CSC by finalizing qualifications and appointments without CSC approval.
- Pichay:
- Section 5 is invalid delegation of legislative power and violates separation of powers.
- Exclusion of 13,968 GOCCs (e.g., local water districts, economic zones) is arbitrary, not germane to RA 10149’s purpose—equal protection violation.
- General law cannot amend special-charter GOCCs without clear intent.
- Locus standi as former GOCC chairperson and taxpayer; issues of paramount public interest warrant relaxed standing.
Respondents’ Contentions
- No actual case or controversy; petitions premature, pre-implementation.
- Petitioners lack direct, substantial legal injury or standing (not GOCC officers).
- Presumption of constitutionality; must show clear breach.
- Administrative remedies or appeals available; Rule 65 improper.
- Security of tenure applies only to “employees” (CSC jurisdiction), not appointive board members; Congress may shorten term or abolish office in good faith.
- Delegation to GCG is contingent and subordinate l