Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

CONSTITUTIONAL

LAW 1 DEANS CIRCLE


2016

referred by the Office of the President to the Committee on Honors. Meanwhile, the OP allegedly received
nominations from various sectors, cultural groups and individuals strongly endorsing Cecile Guidote-Alvarez,
et.al. The Committee on Honors purportedly processed these nominations and invited resource persons to
validate the qualifications and credentials of the nominees. Acting on this recommendation, Proclamation No.
1823 declaring Manuel Conde a National Artist was issued. Subsequently, Proclamation Nos. 1824 to 1829
were issued declaring Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar Alcuaz and Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and
Moreno, respectively, as National Artists. A petition for prohibition, certiorari and injunction was filed by
Virgilio Almario, et. al who claim that former President Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her discretion in
disregarding the results of the rigorous screening and selection process for the Order of National Artists and
in substituting her own choice for those of the Deliberation Panels. According to them, the Presidents
discretion to name National Artists is not absolute but limited. In particular, her discretion on the matter
cannot be exercised in the absence of or against the recommendation of the NCCA and the CCP.

Issue:


Whether there was grave abuse of discretion committed by former President Arroyo.

Ruling:


YES. The "power to recommend" includes the power to give "advice, exhortation or indorsement,
which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding upon the party to whom it is made."In view of the
various stages of deliberation in the selection process and as a consequence of his/her duty to faithfully
enforce the relevant laws, the discretion of the President in the matter of the Order of National Artists is
confined to the names submitted to him/her by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. This means that the President
could not have considered conferment of the Order of National Artists on any person not considered and
recommended by the NCCA and the CCP Boards. That is the proper import of the provision of Executive Order
No. 435, s. 2005, that the NCCA and the CCP "shall advise the President on the conferment of the Order of
National Artists." Applying this to the instant case, the former President could not have properly considered
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno, as their names were not recommended by the
NCCA and the CCP Boards. Otherwise, not only will the stringent selection and meticulous screening process
be rendered futile, the respective mandates of the NCCA and the CCP Board of Trustees under relevant laws to
administer the conferment of Order of National Artists, draft the rules and regulations to guide its
deliberations, formulate and implement policies and plans, and undertake any and all necessary measures in
that regard will also become meaningless.


CESAR R. DE LEON V. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO
G.R. No. 85243 October 12, 1989, CRUZ, J.


It is an elementary principle of our republican government, enshrined in the Constitution and honored
not in the breach but in the observance, that all executive departments, bureaus and offices are under the control
of the President of the Philippines.

Facts:


Francisco Estavillo and Cesar de Leon are two NBI agents terminated by then Minister of Justice
Neptali A. Gonzales. Upon appeal to the Review Committee, the said body declined to act on their petitions for
reconsideration on the ground that it had lost its jurisdiction with the ratification of the new Constitution.
They were advised instead to seek relief from the Civil Service Commission. The Merit Systems Protection
Board of CSC held that their dismissals were invalid and unconstitutional, having been done in violation of
their security of tenure under the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly, the Board ordered their reinstatement.
However, respondent Carpio, as Director of NBI, returned the orders issued by the Secretary of Justice to CSC
without action, claiming that they were null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction.

94 | P a g e

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 DEANS CIRCLE


2016


Issue:


Whether the Director of the NBI can disobey an explicit and direct order issued to him by the
Secretary of Justice.

Ruling:


NO. The Presidents power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet
who, in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in
the executive department. The constitutional vesture of this power in the President is self-executing and does
not require statutory implementation, nor may its exercise be limited, much less withdrawn, by the
legislature.


In the case of Villena v. Secretary of the Interior, the Court ruled that theoretically, the President has
full control of all the members of his Cabinet and may appoint them as he sees fit or shuffle them at pleasure,
subject only to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and replace them in his discretion. Once in
place, they are at all times under the disposition of the President as their immediate superior. Without
minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality is in reality but the
projection of that of the President. Hence, their acts, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.


In the case at bar, there is no question that when the Sec. of Jusice directed Carpio to reinstate
Estavillo and de Leon, Sec. Ordonez was acting in the regular discharge of his functions as an alter ego of the
President. His acts should therefore have been respected by Carpio, the Director of the NBI, which is in the
Department of Justice under the direct control of its Secretary. As a subordinate in this department, Carpio
was (and is) bound to obey the Secretarys directives, which are presumptively the acts of the President of the
Philippines.


LORETO BARRIOQUINTO AND NORBERTO JIMENEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ET. AL
G.R. No.L-1278, January 21, 1949,FERIA, J.


Although the accused does not confess the imputation against him, he may be declared by the court or
the Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits of the amnesty.

Facts:


Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the crime of murder.
Jimenez was the only one arrested and after trial was sentenced to life imprisonment. Before the period for
perfecting an appeal, Jimenez decided to submit his case to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission in accordance
with Proclamation No. 8, issued by the then President Manuel Roxas, which grants amnesty. After a
preliminary hearing had started, the Amnesty Commission returned the cases to the CFI without deciding
whether or not they are entitled to the benefits of the said Amnesty Proclamation, on the ground that
inasmuch as neither Barrioquinto nor Jimenez have admitted having committed the offense, because
Barrioquinto alleged that it was Hipolito Tolention who shot and killed the victim, they cannot invoke the
benefits of amnesty.

Issue:

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the amnesty issued by the President.

95 | P a g e

I. TITLE: De Leon vs. Carpio


II. FULL TITLE:
CESAR R. DE LEON, versus J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, Director, National Bureau of
Investigation, respondent. G.R. No. 85243 October 12, 1989
FRANCISCO R. ESTAVILLO versus J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, Director, National
Bureau of Investigation, respondent. G.R.No. 85442 October 12, 1989
III. TOPIC: Presidency. The act of secretary, as alter ego of the President, is also the
act of the President
IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
The cases have been consolidated because they involve the same issue against
the respondent, who has refused to reinstate the petitioners.
The services of Estavillo and de Leon were terminated by then Minister of Justice
Neptali Gonzales. Both appealed to the Review Committee but then advised to seek
relief from the Civil Service Commission because the committee had lost jurisdiction
due to the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. The CSC held that their dismissal were
invalid and unconstitutional.
Undersecretary of Justice Montenegro referred the order reinstating Estavillo and
Undersecretary of Justice Bello III referred the order of reinstating de Leon. The
reaction of the respondent was to return said orders to the CSC claiming that they were
null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction.
Secretary of Justice Ordonez sent memorandum to Carpio directing him to
implement the orders of reinstating the petitioners to their former positions. Instead of
complying, the respondent issued a memorandum disregarding the memorandum
issued by the Secretary of Justice.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Estavillo and de Leon came to the Court in separate petitions for mandamus.
VI. ISSUE:
WON the director of the NBI can disobey an explicit and direct order issue to him
by the Secretary of Justice.

VII. COURT RULING:


No, the director of the NBI cannot disobey the order. The President has full
control of all the memberso f his Cabinet and may appoint them as he sees fit or shuffle
them at pleasure or replace them in his discretion. They are at all times under the
disposition of the President as their immediate superior. The acts of the members of the
Cabinet performed and promulgated in the regular course of business are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive. In the case at bar, Secretary Ordonez was acting in the regular discharge of
his functions as an alter ego of the President. His acts should be respected by the
respondent because the latter is bound to obey the Secretarys directives, which are
presumptively the acts of the President of the Philippines.
VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The respondent is hereby
ORDERED to immediately reinstate the petitioners as directed by the Secretary of
Justice in implementation of the challenged orders of the Merit Systems Protection
Board of the Civil Service Commission. No costs.

VOL. 178, OCTOBER 12, 1989

457

De Leon vs. Carpio


*

G.R. No. 85243. October 12, 1989.

CESAR R. DE LEON, petitioner, vs. J. ANTONIO M.


CARPIO, Director, National Bureau of Investigation,
respondent.
*

G.R. No. 85442. October 12, 1989.

FRANCISCO R. ESTAVILLO, petitioner, vs. J. ANTONIO


M. CARPIO, Director, National Bureau of Investigation,
respondent.
Constitutional Law All executive departments, bureaus and
offices are under the control of the President of the Philippines.It
is an elementary principle of our republican government,
enshrined in the Constitution and honored not in the breach but
in the observance, that all executive departments, bureaus and
offices are under the control of the President of the Philippines.
This precept, first embodied in the Commonwealth Constitution
and reiterated in the 1973 Constitution, has been retained in
Article VII, Section 17 of the present Constitution.
Same Same Presidents power of control is directly exercised
by him over the members of the Cabinet who in turn and by his
authority control the bureaus and other offices under their
respective jurisdictions in the executive department.The
Presidents power of control is directly exercised by him over the
members of the Cabinet who, in turn and by his authority, control
the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions
in the executive department. The consti
_______________
*

EN BANC.

458

458

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


De Leon vs. Carpio

tutional vesture of this power in the President is selfexecuting


and does not require statutory implementation, nor may its
exercise be limited, much less withdrawn, by the legislature.
Same Same Same The acts of the members of the Cabinet
performed and promulgated in the regular course of business are,
unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.Theoretically, the
President has full control of all the members of his Cabinet and
may appoint them as he sees fit or shuffle them at pleasure,
subject only to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
and replace them in his discretion. Once in place, they are at all
times under the disposition of the President as their immediate
superior. Justice Laurel put it aptly in Villena v. Secretary of the
Interior, when he said that without minimizing the importance of
the heads of the various departments, their personality is in
reality but the projection of that of the President. Hence, their
acts, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business
are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
Same Same Same Same Secretary Ordoez was acting in
the regular discharge of his functions as an alter ego of the
President when he directed the respondent to reinstate the
petitioners Case at bar.In the case at bar, there is no question
that when he directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioners,
Secretary Ordoez was acting in the regular discharge of his
functions as an alter ego of the President. His acts should
therefore have been respected by the respondent Director of the
National Bureau of Investigation, which is in the Department of
Justice under the direct control of its Secretary. As a subordinate
in this department, the respondent was (and is) bound to obey the
Secretarys directives, which are presumptively the acts of the
President of the Philippines.
Same Same Same Same Same Director Carpio should have

dutifully obeyed the order of Secretary Ordoez as his immediate


superior in the Department of Justice.Our conclusion is that this
regrettable controversy would not have arisen at all if the
respondent had had the humility to recognize the limits of his
authority and acted accordingly. Plainly put, Director Carpio
should have dutifully obeyed the orders of Secretary Ordoez as
his immediate superior in the Department of Justice. That is
what we must now order the respondent to do.
459

VOL. 178, OCTOBER 12, 1989

459

De Leon vs. Carpio

PETITIONS to review the orders of the Director, National


Bureau of Investigation.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ramon E. Encarnacion for petitioner Cesar R. De
Leon.
Doroteo B. Daguna for petitioner.
CRUZ, J.:
These two cases have been consolidated because they
involve the same issue against the respondent Director of
the National Bureau of Investigation, who has refused to
reinstate the petitioners in defiance of the orders of the
Civil Service Commission as referred to him by the
Secretary of Justice for implementation.
The services of Francisco R. Estavillo as Agent III and of
Cesar R. de Leon as Head Agent in the National Bureau of
Investigation were terminated by then Minister of Justice
Neptali A.
Gonzales in separate Orders both dated January
1
27, 1987. Estavillo was notified of his dismissal
on March
2
6, 1987, and De Leon on February 6, 1987. Both appealed
to the Review Committee created under Executive Order
No. 17, but this body declined to act on their petitions for
reconsideration on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction
with the ratification of the new Constitution on February 2,
1987. They were advised instead
to seek relief from the
3
Civil Service 4Commission. They did. In substantially
similar Orders, they were sustained by the Merit Systems
Protection Board of the said Commission. It was held that
their dismissals were invalid and unconstitutional, having