View full case

JELBERT B. GALICTO v. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

FACTS:

Petitioner Jelbert B. Galicto, an employee of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to nullify and enjoin the implementation of Executive Order No. (EO) 7 issued by the Office of the President. Petitioner claims that EO 7 is unconstitutional for being issued beyond the powers of the President and for violating existing laws. Respondents in the case are President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa Jr., and Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management Florencio B. Abad. Pres. Aquino issued EO 7, which directed the rationalization of the compensation and position classification system in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs). Petitioner argues that EO 7 lacks a legal basis and divests the power of the board of directors of the GOCCs to fix compensation, among other arguments. Respondents argue that the President has control over the GOCCs and GFIs and that EO 7 was issued in accordance with the law to control the grant of excessive salaries and benefits to GOCC and GFI employees.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to question the validity of an executive order.

  2. Whether a petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to assail the validity of an executive order.

  3. Whether the petitioner's use of certiorari and prohibition constitutes a blatant violation of procedural rules.

  4. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition.

  5. Whether the petitioner has the legal standing to assail Executive Order 7.

  6. Whether the petitioner's claim of being a member of the bar in good standing provides him with the necessary locus standi.

  7. Whether the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a material and personal interest to file the case as a representative of PhilHealth.

  8. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failing to comply with the requirements regarding the jurat.

  9. Whether the defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is a fatal defect.

  10. Whether the petition has been rendered moot by supervening events.

RULING:

  1. Certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the validity of an executive order. Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial, and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an executive order is not a judicial, quasi-judicial, or mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohibition is an incorrect remedy. Instead, a petition for declaratory relief filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is the proper recourse (Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila).

  2. A petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to assail the validity of an executive order. Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides that any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder. Certiorari is not appropriate to seek a declaration of unconstitutionality or illegality of an executive order (Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila).

  3. The petitioner's use of certiorari and prohibition constitutes a blatant violation of procedural rules. It was an attempted bypass of other available remedies and a manipulation of the Rules of Court. The petition should be dismissed for its blatant violation of the Rules.

  4. The petitioner lacks locus standi to file the present petition. He has not demonstrated a personal stake or material interest in the outcome of the case. His claim is speculative and based on a mere expectancy. He has no vested rights to salary increases, therefore, he does not have legal standing to challenge the moratorium on such increases.

  5. The petitioner does not have legal standing to assail Executive Order 7. The absence of a legal right or legal interest, as well as the lack of direct and substantial injury, deprives the petitioner of the necessary locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of the executive order.

  6. The petitioner's claim of being a member of the bar in good standing does not provide him with locus standi. The court has previously held that a general interest in ensuring the legality and validity of government laws and orders is not sufficient to establish standing. Such an interest is shared by other groups and the entire citizenry.

  7. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a material and personal interest in the issue in dispute. Consequently, he cannot be considered as a representative of PhilHealth. His failure to provide a Board Resolution or Secretary's Certificate from PhilHealth further supports this finding.

  8. The petition is not dismissed for failing to comply with Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the jurat. The petitioner's signature and office address are present in the petition, satisfying the requirements. The Supreme Court's resolution and bar matter regarding the indication of identification numbers or certificates are not applicable when the petitioner is representing himself. However, the jurat is indeed defective as it lacks a current identification document issued by an official agency.

  9. The defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect. The verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement that the Court may waive.

  10. The petition has been rendered moot by supervening events. The lapse of Section 10 of EO 7 and the enactment of R.A. No. 10149, which empowers the President to determine the compensation systems of GOCCs and GFIs, have made the case academic. As such, there is no longer a justiciable controversy and any ruling on the constitutionality of EO 7 would serve no useful purpose.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial, and mandatory acts, and not the validity of executive orders (Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila).

  • A petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to assail the validity of an executive order or other governmental regulation (Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila).

  • The liberal policy of allowing certiorari and prohibition as remedies has its limits and should not be abused.

  • Locus standi requires a personal and substantial interest in the case, with a direct injury resulting from the challenged government act.

  • Interest must be material, present, and substantial, as opposed to a mere expectation or future contingency.

  • Locus standi requires a petitioner to have a legal right or interest affected by the case, as well as a direct and substantial injury. Mere general interests shared by the whole citizenry do not establish standing.

  • A petitioner cannot establish locus standi by claiming to be a member of the bar in good standing who wishes to ensure the legality and validity of government laws and orders. This interest is too general and shared by other groups and the entire citizenry.

  • A petitioner claiming to represent an institution must provide appropriate documentation, such as a Board Resolution or Secretary's Certificate, to act as a representative.

  • Compliance with the requirements for the jurat, including the indication of identification numbers or certificates, is not necessary when the petitioner is representing himself. However, a defective jurat can still be grounds for dismissal.

  • The defective jurat in the Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is not a fatal defect and can be waived.

  • A case is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy due to supervening events or resolution of the matter in dispute.

  • The Court normally does not entertain a petition on a moot issue unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties.