View full case

PROSPERO A. PICHAY v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, seeking to declare Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13) as unconstitutional and to prohibit the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner based on the said executive order. E.O. 13, which was issued by President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, abolished the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and transferred its functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA) and its newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD).

Prior to the issuance of E.O. 13, then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had issued Executive Order No. 12 (E.O. 12), which created the PAGC and gave it the power to investigate and hear administrative cases for possible graft and corruption against presidential appointees. In April 2011, the respondent filed a complaint affidavit for grave misconduct against the petitioner and his co-respondents before the IAD-ODESLA. The petitioner argued that a similar case was already pending in the Office of the Ombudsman and, therefore, filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was subsequently denied.

Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition on various grounds, alleging that E.O. 13 is unconstitutional for usurping the power of the legislature to create a public office, to appropriate funds, and to delegate quasi-judicial powers to administrative agencies. The petitioner also claimed that E.O. 13 encroached upon the powers of the Ombudsman, violated the guarantee of due process, and infringed upon the equal protection clause.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the President is authorized under any existing law to create the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division, Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (IAD-ODESLA).

  2. Whether the creation of IAD-ODESLA encroaches upon the powers of the Ombudsman.

  3. Whether E.O. 13 violates the due process requirement and equal protection clause under the 1987 Constitution.

  4. Did the President exceed his authority when he issued Executive Order (EO) 13, which abolished the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and transferred its functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA)?

  5. Whether the IAD-ODESLA has the authority to resolve cases or is limited to conducting investigations and making recommendations.

  6. Whether the IAD-ODESLA encroached upon the powers and duties of the Ombudsman.

  7. Whether Executive Order No. 13 violates the petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the laws.

  8. Whether the President has the authority to investigate and discipline presidential appointees.

  9. Whether there are substantial distinctions between presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions and non-presidential appointees occupying lower positions.

  10. Whether the petitioner's right to due process was violated.

RULING:

  1. The President has the continuing authority to reorganize the offices under him in order to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency. This authority is granted by Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292 (E.O. 292), also known as the Administrative Code of 1987. The creation of IAD-ODESLA is within the President's prerogative of reorganization under E.O. 292.

  2. The creation of IAD-ODESLA does not encroach upon the powers of the Ombudsman. The transfer of functions from the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) to IAD-ODESLA is properly within the President's delegated legislative authority to reorganize his own office.

  3. The contentions that E.O. 13 violates the due process requirement and equal protection clause under the 1987 Constitution are unavailing. The creation of IAD-ODESLA falls within the limitations prescribed under E.O. 292.

  4. No, the President did not exceed his authority. The reorganization by way of abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the ODESLA is allowable under Section 31(1) of Executive Order (EO) 292. The reorganization did not entail the creation of a new, separate and distinct office. The duties and functions of the PAGC were simply transferred to the ODESLA, an existing office within the Office of the President Proper. The reorganization was pursued in good faith, with the aim of economy and efficiency in the bureaucracy. There was no usurpation of the legislative power to appropriate public funds. The President has the authority to recommend the budget necessary for the operation of the Government and determine the structure of government agencies within the executive department. The necessary funds for the ODESLA may be properly sourced from the President's own office budget without committing any illegal appropriation. The Investigative and Adjudicatory Division within the ODESLA is not vested with quasi-judicial powers. Its authority is limited to fact-finding and recommendatory functions.

  5. The IAD-ODESLA is limited to conducting investigations, preparing reports, and submitting recommendations. It does not have the authority to resolve cases. The function of fact-finding is not adjudication and should be accompanied by the authority to apply the law to the factual conclusions to decide the controversy authoritatively, subject to modes of review as provided by law.

  6. The IAD-ODESLA did not encroach upon the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction. The Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction refers to criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The IAD-ODESLA's authority is limited to administrative cases. The Ombudsman may take over an investigation from another agency only in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. Therefore, since the case before the IAD-ODESLA is an administrative disciplinary case, the petitioner cannot invoke the Ombudsman's primary jurisdiction to prevent the IAD-ODESLA from proceeding with its investigation.

  7. Executive Order No. 13 does not violate the petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the laws. The equal protection clause allows reasonable classification so that groups with substantial distinctions may be treated differently. The limitation of the IAD-ODESLA's investigation to presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions in the government is a reasonable classification. It is not intended to prohibit legislation that applies only to those falling within a specified class, as long as it applies alike to all persons in that class.

  8. The President has the authority to investigate and discipline presidential appointees. This authority is derived from the power to remove or discipline which is vested in the same authority on which the power to appoint is lodged.

  9. There are substantial distinctions between presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions and non-presidential appointees occupying lower positions. Elected officials are put in office by the mandate of the electorate and are expected to serve until the end of their term, while appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation by an appointing authority.

  10. The petitioner's right to due process was not violated as he was given sufficient opportunity to oppose the formal complaint filed against him. Due process in administrative proceedings only requires that charges be filed and the person charged be given a reasonable opportunity to answer the accusations against him. The petitioner was issued an order requiring him to submit his explanation but failed to do so.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The President has the continuing authority to reorganize the executive department to achieve simplicity, economy, and efficiency. This authority is granted by Section 31 of E.O. 292.

  • The President's power to reorganize the Office of the President Proper is more extensive compared to his power to reorganize offices outside the Office of the President Proper but still within the Office of the President.

  • The reorganization actions undertaken by the President must fall within the limitations prescribed under E.O. 292.

  • Reorganization takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units, including the lines of control, authority, and responsibility between them.

  • A valid reorganization must be exercised through legitimate authority and pursued in good faith.

  • The President has the power to recommend the budget necessary for the operation of the Government and the authority to reorganize the executive offices and agencies under him.

  • The President can transfer funds appropriated for different departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies of the Executive Department to any program, project, or activity included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment.

  • The President's authority to reorganize includes modifying and realigning appropriations.

  • The Investigative and Adjudicatory Division within the ODESLA is not vested with quasi-judicial powers but is limited to fact-finding and recommendatory functions.

  • Fact-finding is not adjudication. Fact-finding involves receiving evidence and ascertaining facts, but it must be accompanied by the authority to apply the law to decisively resolve a controversy.

  • The President, as the Chief Executive, has control over the executive departments, bureaus, and offices, including the power to conduct investigations into the conduct of officials and employees in the executive department.

  • The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman refers to criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, not administrative cases. The Ombudsman's authority is not exclusive and can be shared with other similarly authorized government agencies.

  • The equal protection clause requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both in terms of rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It allows for reasonable classification as long as it applies alike to all persons within the specified class.