Case Summary (G.R. No. 46440)
Procedural History
Plan P filed an original petition for prohibition (and a simultaneous request for preliminary injunction) in the Supreme Court on November 25, 1938, to enjoin Commissioner Gil from proceeding with the inquiry. The injunction was denied; Gil ruled he had jurisdiction and set December 8, 1938, for further proceedings. Planas then amended her petition; the Solicitor-General filed an amended answer. Planas sought a permanent writ prohibiting the investigation, while the Government maintained that both constitutional and statutory provisions empowered the President—and through him the Commissioner—to inquire.
Factual Background
On November 17, 1938, La Vanguardia published Planas’s critique accusing the President and his administration of using government machinery and civil-service violations to defeat legitimate opposition candidates. By letter dated November 18 (Annex A), Secretary Vargas, “by authority of the President,” quoted the charges and directed Planas to appear before the Civil Service Commissioner on November 22 to prove them, warning that failure to do so might justify suspension or removal. Planas appeared with counsel, objected to respondent’s jurisdiction, and declined to proceed further pending Supreme Court determination.
Petitioner’s Contentions
a. Commissioner Gil lacked jurisdiction to investigate an elective official’s private political speech.
b. Article VII, Sec. 11(1) of the 1935 Constitution and existing statutes do not authorize administrative probes for statements unconnected with official duties.
c. Elective local officials answer politically only to their constituents, not to administrative superiors.
d. Alleged sedition or similar offenses must be tried in regular courts, not by closed-door administrative inquiry.
e. Delegation of presidential powers to Secretary Vargas was unconstitutional.
f. The investigation threatened free-speech rights and amounted to arbitrary, oppressive executive power.
Respondent’s Contentions
a. The President’s order to investigate is rooted in Article VII, Sec. 11(1) of the 1935 Constitution and Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.
b. The Chief Executive’s judgment that “the good of the public service” requires inquiry is conclusive and not subject to judicial review.
c. Administrative investigation is independent of any concurrent judicial action.
d. Elective officials in government service are subject to the same administrative discipline as appointed officers.
e. The petition states no actual grievance—no suspension or removal has yet occurred—and is therefore premature.
f. Courts lack jurisdiction over purely executive acts under the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Jurisdictional Question: Separation of Powers
The Court recognized the non-interference principle but held that it must still determine the constitutionality and legality of an executive order when properly challenged. The writ of prohibition may issue against any officer whose acts are “without or in excess of jurisdiction,” whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. A subordinate official’s invocation of presidential authority does not automatically preclude judicial inquiry into the validity of that authority.
Executive Power under the 1935 Constitution
Article VII vests all executive power in the President and imposes on him the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Section 11(1) grants him control over executive departments and general supervision of local governments. Supervision inherently implies the power to investigate facts and conditions in order to discharge his constitutional obligations effectively.
Statutory Basis: Administrative Code Section 64(c)
Section 64(c) of the 1917 Administrative
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 46440)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Carmen Planas filed an original petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court on November 25, 1938, to enjoin Commissioner Jose Gil of Civil Service from investigating her statements of November 17, 1938.
- A writ of preliminary injunction was denied by resolution of the Court on November 25, 1938.
- Planas amended her petition on December 2, 1938; the Solicitor-General filed an amended answer.
- The petitioner prayed for:
- A writ of preliminary injunction to halt the investigation pending final resolution.
- A permanent writ of prohibition against the respondent’s investigation.
- A declaration that the presidential orders (Annexes A and C) and the Commissioner’s resolution (Annex E) were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and void.
- Costs and other relief deemed just and equitable.
Statement of Facts
- Planas, a member of the Manila municipal board, published a statement on November 17, 1938, in La Vanguardia criticizing:
- Opposition divisions and speculation of candidacies.
- The President’s public preference for Nacionalista candidates and involvement in politics despite the constitutional prohibition on reelection.
- Government machinery mobilization, alleged frauds, and civil-service violations aiding administration candidates.
- Cabinet members’ active campaigning and a feared attempt to amend the Constitution to allow presidential reelection.
- On November 18, 1938, Secretary Jorge B. Vargas, “by authority of the President,” sent Planas Annex A:
- Quoted her statement in full.
- Directed her to appear before the Commissioner of Civil Service on November 22 to prove her charges or face suspension or removal.
- Planas and counsel appeared on November 22 and delivered Annex B, objecting to the respondent’s jurisdiction.
- The Commissioner postponed ruling on jurisdiction to November 26, 1938.
- Planas filed her petition for prohibition on November 25, 1938; her request that the Commissioner defer any ruling was denied on November 26 (Annex E).
- The Commissioner scheduled further proceedings for December 8, 1938, to allow Planas to present evidence in support of her charges.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate an elected municipal official for statements made as a private citizen.
- The investigation violates Article VII, Section 11(1) of the Constitution and lacks statutory basis.
- Under pre-Constitution statutes, administrative removal applies only to misconduct in official duties, not political speech.
- Elected officials are accountable to their constituents, not to executive bodies of an opposing party, except for penal offenses.
- Political expression cannot be the ground for administrative removal and is cognizable only by courts under the Penal Code.
- If Planas’s statement constitutes sedition or another crime, it must be tried publicly and impartially by a court, not by administrative inquiry.
- The presidential orders in Annexes A and C are void for improper delegation of the President’s exclusive p