FIRST DIVISION
ROSA
LIGAYA C.
DOMINGO,
ROMEO M. FERNANDEZ, VICTORIA S. ESTRADA,JULIETA C. FAJARDO, ADELAIDA B. GAWIRAN, MARCIANO M.
SERVO,VICTORIA S. DAOANG,
FELICIANO N. TOLEDO III, JAYNELYN D. FLORES,MA. LIZA B. LLOREN,
ROMELIA A. CONTAPAY, MARIVIC B. TOLITOL,PAZ LEVITA G.
VILLANUEVA,
EDITHA C. HERNANDEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, JR.,VERONICA C. BELLES,
AMELITA S. BUCE, MERCELITA C. MARANAN,CRISTITUTO C.
LLOREN,
HERNANDO M. EVANGELISTA, AND CARLOS BACAY, JR.,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
142283
February 6, 2003
- versus -
HON.
RONALDO D.
ZAMORA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,HON. ANDREW B.
GONZALES,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,AND HON. CARLOS
D. TUASON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THEPHILIPPINE SPORTS
COMMISSION,
Respondents. |
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chan
r obles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Case
This is a Petition for
Certiorari and prohibition[1]
with prayer for temporary restraining order seeking to nullify
Executive
Order No. 81 and Memoranda Nos. 01592 and 01594.[2]
The assailed executive order transferred the sports development
programs
and activities of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
("DECS"
for brevity) to the Philippine Sports Commission ("PSC" for brevity).
The
questioned memoranda ("DECS Memoranda" for brevity), on the other hand,
reassigned all Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports ("BPESS"
for brevity) personnel named in the DECS Memoranda to various offices
within
the DECS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
On March 5, 1999, former
President Joseph E. Estrada issued Executive Order No. 81[3]("EO
81" for brevity) entitled "Transferring the Sports Programs and
Activities
of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to the Philippine
Sports
Commission and Defining the Role of DECS in School-Based Sports."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
EO 81 provided thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Section 1. Transferring
the Sports Program and Activities to the PSC. All the functions,
programs
and activities of DECS related to sports development as provided for in
Sec. 16 of EO 117 (s. 1987) are hereby transferred to PSC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 2. Defining
the Role of DECS in School-Based Sports. The DECS shall have
jurisdiction
and function over the enhancement of Physical Education (P.E.)
curriculum
and its application in whatever form inside schools.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 3. The Role
of PSC. As the primary agency tasked to formulate policies and oversee
the national sports development program, the management and
implementation
of all school-based sports competitions among schools at the district,
provincial, regional, national and international levels, in
coordination
with concerned public and private entities shall be transferred to the
PSC."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pursuant to EO 81, former
DECS Secretary Andrew B. Gonzales ("Secretary Gonzales" for brevity)
issued
Memorandum No. 01592 on January 10, 2000. Memorandum No. 01592
temporarily
reassigned, in the exigency of the service, all remaining BPESS Staff
to
other divisions or bureaus of the DECS effective March 15, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 21, 2000,
Secretary Gonzales issued Memorandum No. 01594 reassigning the BPESS
staff
named in the Memorandum to various offices within the DECS effective
March
15, 2000. Petitioners were among the BPESS personnel affected by
Memorandum
No. 01594. Dissatisfied with their reassignment, petitioners filed the
instant petition.cralaw:red
In their Petition, petitioners
argue that EO 81 is void and unconstitutional for being an undue
legislation
by President Estrada. Petitioners maintain that the President’s
issuance
of EO 81 violated the principle of separation of powers. Petitioners
also
challenge the DECS Memoranda for violating their right to security of
tenure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners seek to
nullify EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda. Petitioners pray that this Court
prohibit the PSC from performing functions related to school sports
development.
Petitioners further pray that, upon filing of the petition, this Court
issue a temporary restraining order against respondents to desist from
implementing EO 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the pendency
of the case, Republic Act No. 9155 ("RA 9155" for brevity), otherwise
known
as the "Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001", was enacted on
August
11, 2001. RA 9155 expressly abolished the BPESS and transferred the
functions,
programs and activities of the DECS relating to sports competition to
the
PSC. The pertinent provision thereof reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SEC. 9. Abolition of
BPESS. - All functions, programs and activities of the Department of
Education
related to sports competition shall be transferred to the Philippine
Sports
Commission (PSC). The Program for school sports and physical fitness
shall
remain part of the basic education curriculum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Bureau of Physical
Education and School Sports (BPESS) is hereby abolished. The personnel
of the BPESS, presently detailed with the PSC, are hereby transferred
to
the PSC without loss of rank, including the plantilla positions they
occupy.
All other BPESS personnel shall be retained by the Department."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Issue
The issue to resolve
is whether EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda are valid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court’s Ruling
We dismiss this petition
for being moot and academic.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As manifested by both
petitioners[4]
and respondents,[5]
the subsequent enactment of RA 9155 has rendered the issues in the
present
case moot and academic. Since RA 9155 abolished the BPESS and
transferred
the DECS’ functions relating to sports competition to the PSC,
petitioners
now admit that "it is no longer plausible to raise any ultra vires
assumption
by the PSC of the functions of the BPESS."[6]
Moreover, since RA 9155 provides that BPESS personnel not transferred
to
the PSC shall be retained by the DECS, petitioners now accept that "the
law explicitly protects and preserves"[7]
their right to security of tenure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the issue is
already academic, its significance constrains the Court to point out
that
Executive Order No. 292 ("EO 292" for brevity), otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987, expressly grants the President continuing
authority to reorganize the Office of the President. Section 31 of EO
292
provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 31. Continuing
Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. - The President,
subject
to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve
simplicity,
economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize
the
administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this
purpose,
he may take any of the following actions:
(1) Restructure the
internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including
the immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers
System
and the Common Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging
units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Transfer any function
under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as
well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other
Departments
and Agencies; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Transfer any agency
under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as
well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other
Departments
or Agencies.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since EO 81 is based
on the President’s continuing authority under Section 31 (2) and (3) of
EO 292,[8]
EO 81 is a valid exercise of the President’s delegated power to
reorganize
the Office of the President. The law grants the President this power in
recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his
office "to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." The Office of
the
President is the nerve center of the Executive Branch. To remain
effective
and efficient, the Office of the President must be capable of being
shaped
and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out
his
directives and policies. After all, the Office of the President is the
command post of the President. This is the rationale behind the
President’s
continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the
Office of the President.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners’ contention
that the DECS is not part of the Office of the President is immaterial.
Under EO 292, the DECS is indisputably a Department of the Executive
Branch.
Even if the DECS is not part of the Office of the President, Section 31
(2) and (3) of EO 292 clearly authorizes the President to transfer any
function or agency of the DECS to the Office of the President. Under
its
charter, the PSC is attached to the Office of the President.[9]
Therefore, the President has the authority to transfer the "functions,
programs and activities of DECS related to sports development"[10]
to the PSC, making EO 81 a valid presidential issuance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the President’s
power to reorganize the Office of the President under Section 31 (2)
and
(3) of EO 292 should be distinguished from his power to reorganize the
Office of the President Proper. Under Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the
President
can reorganize the Office of the President Proper by abolishing,
consolidating
or merging units, or by transferring functions from one unit to
another.
In contrast, under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, the President’s
power
to reorganize offices outside the Office of the President Proper but
still
within the Office of the President is limited to merely transferring
functions
or agencies from the Office of the President to Departments or
Agencies,
and vice versa.cralaw:red
This distinction is
crucial as it affects the security of tenure of employees. The
abolition
of an office in good faith necessarily results in the employee’s
cessation
in office, but in such event there is no dismissal or separation
because
the office itself ceases to exist.[11]
On the other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies does not
result
in the employee’s cessation in office because his office continues to
exist
although in another department, agency or office. In the instant case,
the BPESS employees who were not transferred to PSC were at first
temporarily,
then later permanently reassigned to other offices of the DECS,
ensuring
their continued employment. At any rate, RA 9155 now mandates that
these
employees "shall be retained by the Department."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J.,
no part.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Issued by then Department of Education Secretary Andrew B. Gonzales.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Co-signed by former Executive Secretary Ronaldo D. Zamora.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 106, Petitioners’ Reply to Comments, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid., p. 137, Memorandum for Respondents, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Supra, see note 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Supra, see note 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
The preamble of EO 81 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREAS,
paragraph 2, Section 31, Chapter 10, Title III, Book III of the
Administrative
Code of 1987 grants the President the continuing authority to
reorganize
the Office of the President by, among others, transferring any
function,
to include certain programs, from other Departments and/or Agencies to
the Office of the President."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Section 4 of RA 6847 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Status
of the Commission. - The Commission shall have the same status as that
of a governmental regulatory national agency attached to the Office of
the President with the Chairman thereof being of the same level as a
department
undersecretary and the Commissioners that of department assistant
secretaries."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Section 1, EO 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Dario v. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |