Rufino vs.

Endriga Case: Section 16 Article 7:

Facts:
Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure.

First case, GR No. 139554, represented by the Solicitor General, collectively known as the RUFINO group seeks to
set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Resolution denying the motion for the reconsideration.

CA’s decision (to be set aside)

1. Declaring petitioners, ENDRIGA group to have a clear right to their respective offices elected by the CCP
board up to expiration of 4-year term
2. Ousting respondents, Rufino group, except respondent Tantoco, from their respective offices and
excluding them therefrom
3. Dismissing case against Tantoco

Second case, GR No. 139565, the Endriga group, seeks to assail the Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals in
same case insofar as it denied their Motion for Immediate Execution of the Decision.

History of PD 15:
Marcos’ – In 1966, Marcos created EO 30 “Creation of the Cultural Center of the Philippines” as a trust governed by
a Board of Trustees of 7 members to preserve and promote Philippine culture. The original founding trustees were
all pointed by Pres. Marcos

1972, after declaration of Martial Law – Pres. Marcos issued PD 15 which converted CCP into a non-municipal
public corporation free from “the pressure or influence of politics” and increased 7 members to 9. EO 1058 issued
in 1985 increased 9 to 11.

Aquino - 1986, after People Power Resolution, Aquino asked incumbent CCP trustees for courtesy resignation and
appointed new trustees to the Board.

Ramos – started Endriga group

Estrada – appointed 7 new trustees to CCP board with term of 4 years to replace the Endriga group, except for
Tantoco. Thus Rufino group took respective oaths of office and assumed performance of their duties in 1999.

Endriga vs. Estrada

 Endriga group files Petition for Quo Warranto questioning Pres. Estrada’s appointment of 7 new member
of CCP board.
 Alleged that under Sec. 6 (b) of PD 15 – “vacancies of the CCP Board shall be filled by election by majority
vote of trustees held at next regular meeting” – only when the board is entirely vacant may the President
of the Phil. fill such vacancies, acting in consultation with ranking officers of CCP. In the case at bar, only
one seat was vacant due to Ma Osa’s expiration term.
 4-year term: Endriga group maintained that under CCP Charter, the trustees’ fixed 4-year term can only be
terminated “by reason of resignation, incapacity, death, or other cause” thus Pres.’ action was
unnecessary because 10 incumbent trustees had the statutory power to fill up by election any vacancy of
the board.
 Sec. 3 of PD 15 – Endriga refuses to accept CCP is under the supervision and control of the President as
Sec. 3 states – “shall enjoy autonomy of policy and operation”
 CA’s decision: declared Endriga group lawfully entitled to hold office as CCP trustees and ousting Rufino
group from board.
 - Sec. 6 (b) of PD 15 is free from ambiquity.
- Nor may the President’s constitutional statutory power of supervision and control over government
corporations restrict or modify application of CCP Charter.
 Rufino’s Motion for Recon: asserted, by Section 16 of Article 7 of the 1987 Consti, that the law could only
delegate to the CCP board the power to appoint officers lower in rank than trustees of Board which is in
conflict with Sec. 6 of PD 15 – “CCP trustees has the authority to appoint or elect fellow officers of equal
rank not of lower”
 CA: denied Rufino’s Motion and also denied Endriga’s motion for immediate execution of decision.
 Hence the consolidated petitions.

MAIN ISSUE OF 1st case: Whether or not Section 6 paragraph B of PD 15 in which gives authority to CCP trustees to
elect or appoint fellow officers of equal rank, is unconstitutional (as it is against Sec.16 of Article 7, that only the
President has the appointing powers of appointing heads of executive departments)

Important Issues related to lesson:

1. Invalid delegation of the President’s appointing power under the Consti
2. Deprives President’s constitutional power of control and supervision over CCP

MAIN ISSUE OF 2nd case: whether or not a writ of quo warranto involving public office such as CCP should be
declared a self-executing judgment and deemed immediately executor under Rule 39, Section 4 of the rules of
court.

Section 6 (b) and (c) of PD 15:

Board of trustees – has the power and authority of the corporation. Vacancies shall be filled by election of majority
vote by the trustees. Only can the President exercise his/her power to appoint if the board becomes entirely
vacant.

Intent – to insulate the CCP from political influence and pressure, specifically from the Pres. Makes CCP a self-
perpetuating entity, virtually outside the control of the Pres. SUCH CANNOT EXISTS UNDER CONSTI. Sec. 3’s
provision of Board initiating and formulating plocies and activities are still subject to Pres.’ power of control.

Section 16 of Article 7 of Consti:

- source of president’s power to appoint
- gives President legislature authority to delegate power to appoint
- However, Congress may, by law, vest upon the appointment of other officers lower in rank (as
contended in Rufino’s MOC)
- President appoints 5 groups of officers:
1. Heads of Executive department (with consent from Commission of Appointments)
2. Those whom President may be authorized by law to appoint (and 3. without consent of Comm of
App)
3. Officers of the Government (if the law is silent or head appointing declared unconsti)
4. Lower-ranked officers whose appointments Congress may, by the law, vest in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions or boards.
5. Appointments vested by Consti in Supreme Court and Constitutional Commission

Appointment of Heads of Departments, Agencies, Commissions, and Boards:

- Appointing powers belong to President, with:
o Congress - share such authority as to appointing inferior or “lower in rank than those vested by
law”
o Batasang Pambansa can also appoint inferior officers
- Power to appoint to heads is a matter of legislative grace.
 - President’s power is self-executing vested by Consti thus not subject to legislative limitations or
conditions. Others such power are the Supreme Court en banc and Consti Com

Sec. 8 PD 15 – Chairperson of CCP Board is Head of CCP:

- Chairperson, with confirmation from the Board, has the power to appoint all officers, staff and
personnel of the Center
- The CCP may elect membership in Gov’t Service Insurance System (GSIS) those elected will have same
rights and privileges and obligations as gov’t service
- Exempted from coverage of Civil Service Law and Rules

Sec. 3 – Duties of Chairperson:

- Appoint, remove, discipline all officers and personnel
- Perform duties until Board, by majority vote, shall elect another Chairperson

 Thus, under COnsti, CCP “head” is Chairperson and has power to appoint lower ranked officers
 Under PD 15, CCP is a public corporation governed by the Board thus not an agency

Sec. 6 (b) (c) vs. Sec. 16 of Article 7:

HOLDING: Sec. 6 (b) and (c) of PD 15 are unconstitutional.
- While Sec. 6 empowers remaining trustees to fill vacancies of Board, allowing them to elect fellow
trustees... Sec. 16 allows only the heads of departments, agencies, commissions or boards to appoint
only officers lower in rank
- Sec. 6 talks about independent appointing powers which conflicts with the President’s power to
appoint – the two system of appointing powers are recurring anomalies and controversies in
appointment every time new President assumed office.

What is the CCP?

- CCP is under the Executive branch, as stated in Revised Admin Code of 1987 – “any agency, not
placed or order creating them under specific department falls under Office of Pres.”
- President controls CCP
- Sec. 17 of Art. 7 – CCP perform executive and not legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

President’s Power to Control:

- Applies to acts or decision of all officers in the Executive Branch
- Power to control – the power to revise or reverse acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving
exercise of discretion
- Supervision and Control – includes authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted
by law or regulation of subordinate
- Executive branch is unitary thus only the Presindet had executive power exercising control over entire
Executive Branch.
- Legislature can’t validly enact law outside control of Presindent.
- Limitations:
o Doesn’t extend to qyaus-judicial bodies, since proceedings and decisions are judicial in nature
and subject to judicial review, only admin power of Pres.
o Local government units – only general supervision

HOLDING:

Wherefore, we grant the petition of the 1st case wherein we find Sec. 6 (b) and (c) of PD 15
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it authorizes remaining trustees to fill by election vacancies of the Board. And we
find it unnecessary to rule 2nd case.