NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COORDINATING AGENCY (NICA)

Brief History

The National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) was created by virtue of Executive Order (EO) 235
signed by then President Elpidio Quirino on 7 July 1949 in response to the need for a central entity that would
coordinate the intelligence collection activities of the various government instrumentalities. As such, the NICA
was responsible for coordination all government activities relative to national intelligence and preparing national
intelligence estimates of local and foreign situations for the formulation of national policies by the President.

In 1958, under the Reorganization Plan 54-A as implemented by EO 291, the NICA was given the legal and
specific powers and functions to carry out more effectively its mission of providing guidance in decision-making
and national policy formulation.

Following the declaration of martial law, the President Ferdinand Marcos signed Presidential Decree 51 on
16 November 1972, abolishing NICA and creating the National Intelligence and Security Authority (NISA). The
NISA had the same mission as the old organization but the broader powers. The Director General (DG), NISA had
direct supervision over the National Security Council Secretariat, functional direction and control over the Civil
Intelligence and Security Agency (CISA) as well as the intelligence functions of the AFP Intelligence Community.
The CISA was responsible primarily for counterintelligence and exercised functional supervision and control over
civil security units of all governmental offices. The DG, NISA was also the Chairman of the National Intelligence
Board, which served as his advisory body on matters pertaining to the integration and coordination of
intelligence activities.

The EDSA people power revolution in February 1986 ushered in changes in the organization. With the
issuance of EO 246 on 24 July 1987, the NISA and CISA were abolished to pave the way for the creation of the
present NICA.

Mandate

Under Executive Order 246, the NICA is mandated to be the focal point for the direction, coordination and
integration of government activities involving national intelligence, and the preparation of intelligence estimates
of local and foreign situations for the formulation of national policies by the President.

Under Executive Order 69, the NICA shall institute structural reforms to enable the Agency to sufficiently
respond to the challenges of the new millennium, enhance its intelligence assessment and operational
competence, strengthen its capability for intelligence collection, and allow it to take the lead in intelligence
management.

Administrative Order (AO) 68, among others, further designated the DG, NICA as the principal adviser to
the President on intelligence. Under AO 68, the DG, NICA chairs the National Intelligence Committee (NIC), a
collegial body tasked to promote unity and cohesion of the national intelligence community as well as prescribe
policy guidelines and directives to various national government units, agencies and offices engaged in activities
involving national intelligence.

The NICA also acts as coordinator for government security under EO 608, which calls for the
establishment of a national security clearance system for government personnel.

Section 53 of Republic Act (RA) 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007 provides that the NICA shall be
the Secretariat of the Anti-Terrorism Council. The Council shall define the powers, duties and functions of the
NICA as Secretariat of the Council.

Mission
To take the lead in directing, coordinating and integrating all government activities involving national
intelligence.
Mission To take the lead in directing, coordinating and integrating all government activities involving national
intelligence.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 246 July 24, 1987

PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COORDINATING AGENCY AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines is mandated to complete the reorganization of the government,
promote internal stability and preserve sovereignty under the new Constitution;

WHEREAS, there is a need to establish and maintain a mechanism under the Office of the President to integrate
national intelligence to insure the stability of government;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON, C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by
the sovereign people and the New Constitution, do hereby order:

Sec. 1. The National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, hereinafter referred to as NICA, is hereby created under
the Office of the President to replace the National Intelligence Security Authority (NISA), and the Civil Intelligence
and Security Agency (CISA), which are hereby abolished.

Sec. 2. The NICA shall be the focal point for the direction, coordination and integration of government activities
involving intelligence, and the preparation of intelligence estimates of local and foreign situations for the
formulation of national policies by the President.

Sec. 3. The NICA shall be headed by a Director-General who shall be assisted by a Deputy Director-General. Both
officials shall be appointed by the President and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President.

Sec. 4. The Deputy Director-General shall assist the Director-General in the performance of his functions and, in
his absence, perform the functions of the Director-General.

Sec. 5. The NICA shall be under the administrative supervision of, and give support services to, the National
Security Council; however, the agency may report directly to the President, as the President may require.

Sec. 6. The National Intelligence Board (NIB) shall continue to serve as the advisory body to the Director-General
of NICA for the coordination and integration of intelligence activities in the Government.

Sec. 7. The members of the National Intelligence Board shall be appointed by the President. The National Security
Director may sit in all meetings of the Board.

Sec. 8. The organization of the NICA shall consist of the following:

a) The Office of the Director-General which shall undertake the overall management and operation of the
various components of the agency, provide executive staff support, public relations, legal service, and
internal audit for the Agency;

b) The Directorate for Operations, headed by the Assistant Director-General for Operations, which shall be
responsible for the collection of information;

c) The directorate for Production, headed by the Assistant Director-General for Production, which shall
responsible for the preparation of intelligence estimates and other reports, and the maintenance of
automated data processing for the Agency;

d) The Directorate for Administration, headed by the Assistant Director-General for Administration, which
shall be responsible for personnel and training, transportation and communications, supplies and
materials, grounds and buildings maintenance, security, and other support services;

e) The Management and Planning Office which shall formulate plans, policies and programs on the
direction, integration and coordination of national intelligence activities and on the operation and
management improvement of the Agency;
 f) The Office of the Comptroller which shall provide financial management and control for the Agency;
and

g) As many Field Stations as may be determined by the Director-General which shall undertake
intelligence collection activities and provide reports necessary for the preparation of assessments and
estimates.

Sec. 9. The organization staffing pattern of the NICA shall be recommended by the Director-General for the
approval of the President.

Sec. 10. All funds, records, equipment,
personnel as may be necessary based on
shall be transferred to the appropriate
necessary to carry out the provisions
Appropriations Act.
buildings, facilities and other properties of NISA and CISA, and such
qualifications and merit, as determined by the Director-General of NICA
offices and divisions of the NICA. Thereafter, such sums as may be
of this Executive Order shall be included annually in the General

Sec. 11. All personnel whose services are terminated as a result of the abolition or reorganization of NISA and
CISA shall receive the retirement benefits to which they may be entitled under existing laws, rules and
regulations. Otherwise, they shall be paid the equivalent of one-month basic salary for every year of service or the
equivalent nearest fraction thereof favorable to them on the basis of the highest salary received, but in no case
shall such payment exceed the equivalent of twelve (12) months salary.

Sec. 12. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, letters of instructions, and edicts which are inconsistent
with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 13. The invalidity or unconstitutionality of any provision of this Executive Order shall not affect other
provisions thereof which shall continue to be in full force and effect.

Sec. 14. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 24th day of July in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Seven.
YAP vs. LAGTAPON (Susan A. Yap Vs. Elizabeth Lagtapon)
G.R. No. 196347
January 23, 2017

Facts:
On October 9, 1997, respondent Lagtapon instituted a civil suit against petitioner Yap for a sum of money.
Summons were issued and as per return of service of summons dated November 4, 1997, prepared by the
process server in the person of Ray Precioso, the petitioner refused to acknowledge receipt thereof.

As no answer was filed, respondent filed motion to declare petitioner as default. Motion was granted, therefore,
giving the respondent the right to present her evidence ex-parte.
On February 12, 1998, court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent.
On September 25, 2000, the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff for Negros Occidental issued a Notice of Sale on
execution. Setting the auction of the petitioner’s property. Joey Dela Paz, who mortgaged the property, found out
that the annotated title of the said property is in a Notice of Embargo. Upon having knowledge to this, petitioner
resorted to the court for the truth and she found out that she was sued by the respondent.

Issue: Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment and ruling that
RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap’s person through service of summons.

Ruling:
Proceeding from such developments, petitioner Yap filed the subject Petition for Annulment with the CA,
assailing the RTC decision on the ground that summons was not validly served on her, which, thus, prevented the
RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over her person. Petitioner Yap asserted that at the time when summons were
sent, she was not anymore residing in the address where the respondent provided.
Petitioner wholly denied the receipt of summons. However, it was noticed in the returns of summons that
petitioner personally received the summons but refused to receive and sign. So it prompted the process server to
leave a copy to the petitioner.
In the questioned decision of RTC, the CA denied the Petition for Annulment and upheld the validity of service
summons. The CA held that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity, that she failed to
satisfactorily establish that fact that she was residing elsewhere during the time of the service summons,
contrary to what is stated in the Returns of Service.
All told, the Court hereby upholds the finding of the CA in its questioned Decision that petitioner Yap’s evidence
does not constitute a clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity attendant to the
Returns of Service.
Wherefore, the foregoing premises considered, the Court resolves to deny the instant petition.
YAP VS. LAGTAPON (CIVIL CASE)
FACTS: On 9 October 1997, [respondent Lagtapon] instituted a civil suit against [petitioner Yap] for a sum of
money with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental docketed as Civil Case No. 97-9991 and the same was
raffled off to the respondent court.
As no answer was filed, [respondent Lagtapon] filed a motion to declare [petitioner Yap] in default dated 16
December 1997. The said motion was granted by the respondent court in an order issued on 12 January 1998
declaring [petitioner Yap] in default and allowing [respondent Lagtapon] to present her evidence ex-parte on 9
February 1998.
Accordingly, [respondent Lagtapon] adduced evidence in her favor ex-parte. On 10 February 1998, the respondent
court issued an order admitting the documentary exhibits offered by [respondent Lagtapon].
On 12 February 1998, the respondent court rendered the challenged Decision in favor of [respondent Lagtapon]
and against [petitioner Yap]. Under date of 6 March 1998, [respondent Lagtapon] filed a motion for execution
which was favorably acted upon by the respondent court through an order of 21 May 1998.
The Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff for Negros Occidental issued a notice of sale on execution dated 25 September
2000 setting the auction sale of petitioner's property on 17 October 2000. The property of petitioner that was put
up for execution sale consists of a parcel of land identified as Lot 11, Block 2 of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
91608 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-110467 situated at Herminia Street, Villa Valderranm (sic),
Barangay Mandalagan, Bacolod City.
On or about 11 October 2000, Joey de la Paz, to whom [petitioner Yap] mortgaged the same property, informed
her that when he asked his secretary to secure a copy of the title covering the property from the Registry of
Deeds of Bacolod City, it was found out that annotated on the title is a notice of embargo relative to Civil Case
No. 97-9991, that a notice of sale on execution had already been issued and that the said property was scheduled
to be sold at auction on 17 October 2000.
Immediately upon receiving such information, [petitioner Yap] proceeded to the Hall of Justice to verify the
truthfulness thereof. It was only then that she discovered that she was sued by [respondent Lagtapon] and a
judgment by default against her had long been issued.
Proceeding from such developments, petitioner Yap filed the subject Petition for Annulment with the CA,
assailing the RTC Decision on the ground that Summons was not validly served on her, which thus prevented the
RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over her person. In particular, petitioner Yap alleged that at the time Summons
was allegedly served on November 4, 1997 (as evidenced by the Return of Service), she was not residing in either
of the addresses supplied by respondent Lagtapon in her Complaint, namely: (i) Herminia Street, Villa Valderama,
Bacolod City, and (ii) Frankfurt Street, Jesusa Heights, Bacolod City.
With respect to the first address, petitioner Yap claimed that while she used to reside therein, she had already
moved out from the said address sometime in June 1997 and started leasing out the same on July 1998. Hence,
the Summons could not have been served on her on November 4, 1997, as she had already vacated from the said
address by then.
Proceeding from such developments, petitioner Yap filed the subject Petition for Annulment with the CA,
assailing the RTC Decision on the ground that Summons was not validly served on her, which thus prevented the
RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over her person. In particular, petitioner Yap alleged that at the time Summons
was allegedly served on November 4, 1997 (as evidenced by the Return of Service), she was not residing in either
of the addresses supplied by respondent Lagtapon in her Complaint, namely: (i) Herminia Street, Villa Valderama,
Bacolod City, and (ii) Frankfurt Street, Jesusa Heights, Bacolod City.
With respect to the first address, petitioner Yap claimed that while she used to reside therein, she had already
moved out from the said address sometime in June 1997 and started leasing out the same on July 1998. Hence,
the Summons could not have been served on her on November 4, 1997, as she had already vacated from the said
address by then. Petitioner Yap likewise categorically denied receipt of the Motion to Declare in Default dated
December 16, 1997.
On the other hand, respondent Lagtapon denied all the factual allegations in the Petition for Annulment to the
effect that petitioner Yap was never served with Summons on the date indicated, and claimed that petitioner Yap
was indeed aware of the proceedings, as borne out by the records of the RTC.
The CA denied the Petition for Annulment and upheld the validity of the service of Summons on petitioner Yap.
The CA held that petitioner Yap's evidence failed to rebut the presumption of regularity, i.e., that she failed to
satisfactorily establish the fact that she was residing elsewhere during the time of the service of Summons,
contrary to what was stated in the Return of Service.
In her Motion for Reconsideration dated April 15, 2008,7 petitioner Yap claimed that the CA "overlooked very
important documents which, if taken into consideration, could materially affect the decision it first arrived at". In
its Resolution dated February 23, 2011, the CA denied petitioner Yap's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of
merit.
ISSUE: whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition for Annulment and ruling that the
RTC had validly acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Yap's person through service of summons.
HELD: The Petition is denied. It is axiomatic that a public official enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
discharge of one's official duties and functions. Here, in the absence of clear indicia of partiality or malice, the
service of Summons on petitioner Yap is perforce deemed regular and valid. Correspondingly, the Return of
Service of Precioso as process server of the RTC constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein.
Hence, as far as the circumstances attendant to the service of Summons are concerned, the Court has the right to
rely on the factual representation of Precioso that service had indeed been made on petitioner Yap in person. A
contrary rule would reduce the Court to a mere fact-finding tribunal at the expense of efficiency in the
administration of justice, which, as mentioned earlier, is beyond the ambit of the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45
petition.
To successfully overcome such presumption of regularity, case law demands that the evidence against it must be
clear and convincing; absent the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands deserving of
faith and credit. In this case, the burden of proof to discharge such presumption lay with petitioner Yap.
Hence, as far as the circumstances attendant to the service of Summons are concerned, the Court has the right to
rely on the factual representation of Precioso that service had indeed been made on petitioner Yap in person. A
contrary rule would reduce the Court to a mere fact-finding tribunal at the expense of efficiency in the
administration of justice, which, as mentioned earlier, is beyond the ambit of the Court's jurisdiction in a Rule 45
petition. To successfully overcome such presumption of regularity, case law demands that the evidence against it
must be clear and convincing; absent the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption stands
deserving of faith and credit. 5 In this case, the burden of proof to discharge such presumption lay with
petitioner Yap.