View full case

TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals which denied the petition for nullification of the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) Philippines 1999-2004 of the Department of Health (DOH) and Executive Order No. 102 issued by then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on 24 May 1999. The petitioners initially filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus before the Supreme Court, but it was referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.

On May 24, 1999, President Joseph Estrada issued Executive Order No. 102, which redirected the functions and operations of the Department of Health (DOH). The executive order refocused the DOH's mandate from being the sole provider of health services to being a provider of specific health services and technical assistance, as a result of the devolution of basic services to local government units.

Executive Order No. 102 included provisions for the streamlining of the DOH and the deployment of DOH personnel to regional offices and hospitals. It required the preparation of a Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP) which would serve as the basis for the intended changes.

The financial resources needed to implement the RSP would be taken from funds available in the DOH, provided that the total requirements for the implementation of the revised staffing pattern would not exceed available funds for personnel services.

Executive Order No. 102 was enacted pursuant to Section 17 of the Local Government Code, which provided for the devolution to local government units of basic services and facilities, as well as specific health-related functions and responsibilities.

Petitioners, DOH employees, challenged the validity of Executive Order No. 102, arguing that it should have been enacted by Congress and that it was issued in excess of the President's authority. They also argued that the implementation of the RSP was not in accordance with law and that there were errors in the implementation, such as the alleged diminution of compensation and the assignment of employees to positions for which they were not qualified.

However, the Court of Appeals denied the petition due to procedural defects and dismissed it as filed out of time. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

The Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA), implemented through Executive Order No. 102, was also challenged by the petitioners. They argued that the HSRA violated various provisions of the 1987 Constitution pertaining to the duty of the State to protect and promote the people's right to health and well-being.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the HSRA cannot be declared void and reasoned that the provisions of the Constitution invoked by the petitioners are not self-executing and can only provide guidelines for legislation. The Court of Appeals further declared that the President was empowered to issue Executive Order No. 102 and that the Department of Health did not implement it in bad faith or with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the health sector reform agenda (HSRA) violates certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

  2. Whether the HSRA violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.

  3. Whether Executive Order No. 102, which implemented the HSRA, was issued by the President in excess of his authority.

  4. Whether Executive Order No. 102, reorganizing the Department of Health (DOH), was issued by the President in excess of his authority.

  5. Whether the President has the power to reorganize government entities under the Executive Department.

  6. Whether the issuance of Executive Order No. 102 by the President is within his constitutional power of control over the executive department.

  7. Whether the implementation of Executive Order No. 102, particularly the Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP), is flawed and invalid.

  8. Whether the reorganization pursued through Executive Order No. 102 was done in good faith and for the purpose of improving efficiency.

  9. Whether the alleged errors in the implementation of Executive Order No. 102 are sufficient to invalidate the executive order.

  10. Whether the alleged errors in laying down the compensation of DOH employees and the questionable appointments or transfers of DOH employees invalidate Executive Order No. 102.

  11. Whether the petitioners have standing to question the validity of the law.

RULING:

  1. The provisions of the Constitution invoked by petitioners are deemed non self-executing and require legislative enactments before they can be implemented. The HSRA's policies do not violate the Constitution.

  2. Petitioners failed to substantiate how the HSRA breached the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution. Allegations of discrimination or lack of due process were not supported. Thus, the HSRA does not violate these constitutional guarantees.

  3. Petitioners' claim that Executive Order No. 102 was issued in excess of the President's authority is without merit.

  4. Executive Order No. 102 is not void on the ground that it was issued by the President in excess of his authority. The reorganization of the DOH is not an exercise of legislative functions but falls within the President's power to reorganize government entities under the Executive Department.

  5. The President has the authority to direct the reorganization of government entities under the Executive Department, as provided in Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 31, Book III, Chapter 10 of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). The President's power to reorganize the executive department is also recognized in general appropriations laws.

  6. The issuance of Executive Order No. 102 by the President is within his constitutional power of control over the executive department. It is an exercise of the President's constitutional power and is supported by the provisions of the Administrative Code and other statutes.

  7. The implementation of Executive Order No. 102, particularly the RSP, is not flawed and is insufficient to invalidate the executive order. The implementation was done in accordance with the approval of the Department of Budget and Management and the Presidential Committee on Effective Governance.

  8. The reorganization pursued through Executive Order No. 102 was done in good faith and for the purpose of improving efficiency. The RSP was designed to implement provisions of the Local Government Code and make health services more accessible and efficient.

  9. The alleged errors in the implementation of Executive Order No. 102, such as diminution of compensation, mismatched positions, and violations of the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers, are not sufficiently substantiated and do not provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the executive order.

  10. The alleged errors in laying down the compensation of DOH employees and the questionable appointments or transfers of DOH employees, even if proven, would not invalidate Executive Order No. 102. Any serious legal errors in the compensation can only invalidate the pertinent provisions of Department Circular No. 312, Series of 2000. Questionable appointments or transfers are properly addressed through the appeal process provided under Administrative Order No. 94, Series of 2000. The validity of Executive Order No. 102 remains unaffected.

  11. The petitioners failed to show any present substantial interest, sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the law. The petitioners do not have standing to question the validity of the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Constitutional provisions are generally self-executing but may be declared non self-executing by the Court. Non self-executing provisions require legislative enactments before they can be implemented.

  • Constitutional principles expressed in non self-executing provisions are mere directives addressed to the executive and legislative departments. Courts cannot enforce these provisions if unheeded.

  • The realization of guaranteed rights and ideals expressed in the Constitution requires subsequent legislation to define their parameters.

  • Allegations of violation of broad constitutional principles must be supported with specific and pertinent legislation to give a cause of action. Mere violation of general principles is not enough to nullify a law or policy.

  • The power of the judiciary is limited to the interpretation and application of laws and the Constitution. It cannot go beyond its jurisdiction by formulating its own conclusions to approximate the aims of the Constitution.

  • The President has the authority to issue executive orders within the bounds of his authority as provided by law and the Constitution.

  • The President has control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices.

  • The President has the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President in order to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency.

  • The Office of the President consists of the Office of the President Proper and the agencies under it.

  • The Department of Health (DOH) is an agency under the supervision and control of the President and, therefore, part of the Office of the President.

  • The power to reorganize the executive department is recognized in general appropriations laws.

  • The President has the constitutional power of control over the executive department.

  • Reorganizations of government units or departments are valid if pursued in good faith to promote efficiency.

  • Allegations of errors or flaws in the implementation of an executive order must be sufficiently substantiated to provide grounds for invalidation.

  • Courts are not at liberty to declare statutes or ordinances invalid, as their validity is determined from their general purpose and efficiency to accomplish the desired end, not from their effects in a particular case.

  • Standing to question the validity of a law requires a present substantial interest, sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement.

  • Citizens are allowed to raise a constitutional question only when they can show personal suffering of some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government, and such injury is traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redressed by a favorable action.

  • Standing is determined by the substantive merit of the case or a preliminary estimate thereof.