AIWA vs Rumulo

7/21/2019 AIWA vs Rumulo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aiwa-vs-rumulo 1/11

EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 157509 - January 18, 2005]

AUTOMOTIE IN!U"TR# $OR%ER" A&&IANCE 'AI$A( an)

*+ A**a+/) Un*n M*+u*3* M+r $r4/r 3*. Un*n6

M*+u*3* M+r 3*. "u/r*r Un*n, N*an M+r

3*., In. $r4/r Un*n, Ty+a M+r 3*. $r4/r

Un*n, !URA"TEE& $OR%ER" UNION, :I&";UTTER"EM&O#EE" < $OR%ER" UNION, NATIONA& &ABOR UNION,

E"I-CO&A "UERI"OR" AN! EM&O#EE" UNION, "BA

:ACU&T# A""OCIATION, &!T "ECURIT# ER"ONNE&

UNION, URE:OO!" UNI:IE! &ABOR ORGANI=ATION,

"AMA;ANG MANGGAGA$A NG BICUTAN CONTAINER"

COR., "AMA;ANG MANGGAGA$A NG CIN!ERE&&A,

"AMA;ANG MANGGAGA$A NG &AURA>" :OO!

RO!UCT", Petitioners, v. ;ON. A&BERTO ROMU&O, *n 3*

aa*+y a E?/u+*/ "/r/+ary, an) ;ON. ATRICIA "TO.

TOMA", *n 3/r aa*+y a "/r/+ary &ar an)

E@y@/n+, Respondents.

! E C I " I O N

C;ICO-NA=ARIO, J.

Petitioners, composed of ten (10) labor unions, call upon this Courtto exercise its power of judicial review to declare as unconstitutional

an executive order assailed to be in derogation of the constitutional

doctrine of separation of powers.



n an original action for certiorari , petitioners invo!e their status as

labor unions and as taxpa"ers whose rights and interests are

allegedl" violated and prejudiced b" #xecutive $rder %o. 1&' dated

10 arch 00* whereb" administrative supervision over the

%ational +abor elations Commission (%+C), its regional branchesand all its personnel including the executive labor arbiters and labor

arbiters was transferred from the %+C Chairperson to the

-ecretar" of +abor and #mplo"ment. n support of their

position,1 petitioners argue that the %+C created b" Presidential

/ecree %o. , otherwise !nown as the +abor Code, during artial

+aw was an integral part of the /epartment (then inistr") of

+abor and #mplo"ment (/$+#) under the administrative supervision

of the -ecretar" of ustice. /uring the time of President Cora2on C.34uino, and while she was endowed with legislative functions after

#/-3 , #xecutive $rder %o. 5 was issued whereb" the %+C

became an agenc" attached to the /$+# for polic" and program

coordination and for administrative supervision. $n 0 arch 15&5,

3rticle 1* of the +abor Code was expressl" amended b" epublic

3ct %o. 671' declaring that the %+C was to be attached to the

/$+# for program and polic" coordination onl" while the

administrative supervision over the %+C, its regional branches andpersonnel, was turned over to the %+C Chairman. 8he subject #.$.

%o. 1&', in authori2ing the -ecretar" of +abor to exercise

administrative supervision over the %+C, its regional branches and

personnel, allegedl" reverted to the preep. 3ct %o. 671' setup,

amending the latter law which onl" Congress can do.

8he respondents herein, as represented b" the $ffice of the -olicitor

9eneral, opposed the petition on procedural

*

andsubstantive grounds. Procedurall", it is alleged that the petition

does not pose an actual case or controvers" upon which judicial

review ma" be exercised as petitioners have not specificall" cited

how #.$. %o. 1&' has prejudiced or threatened to prejudice their

rights and existence as labor unions and as taxpa"ers. Closel"

http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jan2005/157509.php#fnt1










intertwined therewith, respondents further argue that petitioners

have no locus standi to assail the validit" of #.$. %o. 1&', not even

in their capacit" as taxpa"ers, considering that labor unions are

exempt from pa"ing taxes, citing -ec. *0 of the 8ax eform 3ct of

1557. #ven assuming that their individual members are taxpa"ers,respondents maintain that a taxpa"er suit will not prosper as #.$.

%o. 1&' does not re4uire additional appropriation for its

implementation. 3s the petition can be decided without passing on

the validit" of the subject executive order, respondents conclude

that the same should be forthwith dismissed.

#ven on the merits, respondents advance the view that the petition

must fail as the administrative supervision granted b" the +aborCode to the %+C Chairman over the %+C, its regional branches

and personnel, does not place them be"ond the President:s broader

power of control and supervision, a power conferred no less than b"

the Constitution in -ection 17, 3rticle ; thereof. 8hus, in the

exercise of the President:s power of control and supervision, he can

generall" oversee the operations of the %+C, its regional branches

and personnel thru his alter ego, the -ecretar" of +abor, pursuant to

the doctrine of 4ualified political agenc".

n their Reply ,' petitioners affirm their locus standi contending that

the" are suing for and in behalf of their members estimated to be

more or less fift" thousand ('0,000) wor!ers who are the real

parties to be affected b" the resolution of this Court. 8he" li!ewise

maintain that the" are suing in behalf of the emplo"ees of the %+C

who have pending cases for dismissal. 8hus, possessed of the

necessar" standing, petitioners theori2e that the issue before this

Court must necessaril" be decided as it involves an act of the Chief

#xecutive amending a provision of law.

<or clarit", #.$. %o. 1&' is hereb" 4uoted=

#>#C?8;# $/# %$. 1&'





3?8@$A%9 8@# -#C#83B $< +3$ 3%/ #P+$B#%8 8$

#>#C-# 3/%-838;# -?P#;-$% $;# 8@# %38$%3+

+3$ #+38$%- C$--$%

D@##3-, -ection 17, 3rticle ; of the Constitution provides thatthe President shall have control of all executive departments,

bureaus and offices and shall ensure that the laws be faithfull"

executedE

D@##3-, the %ational +abor elations Commission (%+C) which

was created b" virtue of Presidential /ecree %o. , otherwise

!nown as the FLabor Code of the Philippines,F is an agenc" under

the #xecutive /epartment and was originall" envisaged as being an

integral part of the /epartment (then inistr") of +abor and

#mplo"ment (/$+#) under the administrative supervision of the

-ecretar" of +abor and #mplo"ment (F-ecretar" of +aborF)E

D@##3-, upon the issuance of #xecutive $rder %o. 5, otherwise

!nown as the FRevised Administrative Code of 1987 F (the

F3dministrative CodeF), the %+C, b" virtue of -ection ', Chapter

6, 8itle ;, oo! ; thereof, became an agenc" attached to the

/$+# for polic" and program coordination and administrativesupervisionE

D@##3-, 3rticle 1* of the +abor Code and -ection ', Chapter 6,

8itle ;, oo! ; of the 3dministrative Code were amended b"

epublic 3ct. %o. 671' approved on arch , 15&5, which provides

that the %+C shall be attached to the /$+# for program and polic"

coordination onl" and transferred administrative supervision over

the %+C, all its regional branches and personnel to the %+CChairmanE

D@##3-, -ection 16, 3rticle of the Constitution guarantees the

right of all persons to a speed" disposition of their cases before all

judicial, 4uasijudicial and administrative bodiesE



D@##3-, the -ecretar" of +abor, after evaluating the %+C:s

performance record in the last five (') "ears, including the rate of

disposition of pending cases before it, has informed the President

that there is a need to expedite the disposition of labor cases

pending before the %+C and all its regional and subregionalbranches or provincial extension units and initiate potent measures

to prevent graft and corruption therein so as to reform its s"stems

and personnel, as well as infuse the organi2ation with a sense of

public service in consonance with the imperative of change for the

greater interest of the peopleE

D@##3-, after consultations with the relevant sectors, the

-ecretar" of +abor has recommended that the President, pursuantto her powers under the Constitution and existing laws, authori2e

the -ecretar" of +abor to exercise administrative supervision over

the %+C and all its regional and subregional branches or provincial

extension units with the objective of improving the rate of

disposition of pending cases and institute ade4uate measures for

the prevention of graft and corruption within the said agenc"E

%$D, 8@##<$#, , 9+$3 3C3P393+ 3$B$, President of the

epublic of the Philippines, b" virtue of the powers vested in me b"

the Constitution and existing laws, do hereb" order=

-#C8$% 1. Authority To !ercise Administrative "upervision. 8he

-ecretar" of +abor is hereb" authori2ed to exercise administrative

supervision over the %+C, its regional branches and all its

personnel, including the #xecutive +abor 3rbiters and +abor

3rbiters, with the objective of improving the rate of disposition of

cases pending before it and its regional and subregional branchesor provincial extension units and to institute ade4uate measures for

the prevention of graft and corruption within the said agenc".

<or this purpose, the -ecretar" of +abor shall, among others=



3. 9enerall" oversee the operations of the %+C and its regional

and subregional branches or provincial extension units for the

purpose of ensuring that cases pending before them are decided or

resolved expeditiousl"E

b. e4uire the submission of reports as the -ecretar" of +abor ma"

deem necessar"E

c. nitiate measures within the agenc" to prevent graft and

corruption, including but not limited to, the conduct of management

audits, performance evaluations and inspections to determine

compliance with established policies, standards and guidelinesE

d. 8o ta!e such action as ma" be necessar" for the proper

performance of official functions, including rectification of violations,

abuses and other forms of maladministrationE andcralawlibrar"

e. nvestigate, on its own or upon complaint, matters involving

disciplinar" action against an" of the %+C:s personnel, including

Presidential appointees, in accordance with existing laws, rules and

regulations. 3fter completing hisGher investigation, the -ecretar" of

+abor shall submit a report to the President on the investigationconducted with a recommendation as to the penalt" to be imposed

or other action to be ta!en, including referral to the Presidential

3nti9raft Commission (P39C), the $ffice of the $mbudsman or an"

other office, committee, commission, agenc", department,

instrumentalit" or branch of the government for appropriate action.

8he authorit" conferred herein upon the -ecretar" of +abor shall not

extend to the power to review, reverse, revise, or modif" the

decisions of the %+C in the exercise of its 4uasijudicial functions

(cf. -ection *&() (b), Chapter 7, oo! ;, 3dministrative Code).

-#C8$% . Report to the "ecretary of Labor . 8he %+C, through

its Chairman, shall submit a report to the -ecretar" of +abor within



thirt" (*0) da"s from issuance of this #xecutive $rder, on the

following matters=

3. Performance eportG3udit for the last five (') "ears, including list

of pending cases and cases disposed of within the said period b" the%+C en banc , b" /ivision and b" the +abor 3rbiters in each of its

regional and subregional branches or provincial extension unitsE

b. /etailed aster Plan on how to li4uidate its bac!log of cases with

clear timetables to clean up its doc!ets within six (6) months from

the issuance hereofE

c. Complete inventor" of its assets and list of personnel indicating

their present positions and stationsE and cralawlibrar"

d. -uch other matters as ma" be re4uired b" the -ecretar" of +abor.

-#C8$% *. Rules and Re#ulations. 8he -ecretar" of +abor, in

consultation with the Chairman of the %+C, is hereb" authori2ed to

issue rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the

provisions of this #xecutive $rder.

-#C8$% . Repealin# Clause. 3ll laws, executive issuances, rules

and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the

provisions of this #xecutive $rder are hereb" repealed, amended, or

modified accordingl".

-#C8$% '. ffectivity . 8his #xecutive $rder shall ta!e effect

immediatel" upon the completion of its publication in the $fficial

9a2ette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the countr".

Cit" of anila, arch 10, 00*.6

8he constitutionalit" of a governmental act having been challenged,

it comes as no surprise that the first line of defense is to 4uestion

the standing of petitioners and the justiciabilit" of herein case.





t is hornboo! doctrine that the exercise of the power of judicial

review re4uires the concurrence of the following re4uisites, namel"=

(1) the existence of an appropriate caseE () an interest personal

and substantial b" the part" raising the constitutional 4uestionE (*)

the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunit"Eand () the necessit" that the constitutional 4uestion be passed

upon in order to decide the case.7 HIJKrLblMN OrQRJl lJSlbrJrT

3s correctl" pointed out b" respondents, judicial review cannot be

exercised in vacuo. 8he function of the courts is to determine

controversies between litigants and not to give advisor"

opinions.& 8he power of judicial review can onl" be exercised in

connection with a bona fide case or controvers" which involves thestatute sought to be reviewed.5

#ven with the presence of an actual case or controvers", the Court

ma" refuse to exercise judicial review unless the constitutional

4uestion is brought before it b" a part" having the re4uisite

standing to challenge it.10 +egal standing or locus standi is defined

as a Fpersonal and substantial interest in the case such that the

part" has sustained or will sustain direct injur" as a result of the

governmental act that is being challenged.F11 <or a citi2en to have

standing, he must establish that he has suffered some actual or

threatened injur" as a result of the allegedl" illegal conduct of the

governmentE the injur" is fairl" traceable to the challenged actionE

and the injur" is li!el" to be redressed b" a favorable action.1

Petitioners have not shown that the" have sustained or are in

danger of sustaining an" personal injur" attributable to the

enactment of #.$. %o. 1&'. 3s labor unions representing theirmembers, it cannot be said that #.$. %o. 1&' will prejudice their

rights and interests considering that the scope of the authorit"

conferred upon the -ecretar" of +abor does not extend to the power

to review, reverse, revise or modif" the decisions of the %+C in the

exercise of its 4uasijudicial functions.1* 8hus, onl" %+C personnel

















who ma" find themselves the subject of the -ecretar" of +abor:s

disciplinar" authorit", conferred b" -ection 1(d) of the subject

executive order, ma" be said to have a direct and specific interest in

raising the substantive issue herein. oreover, and if at all, onl"

Congress, and not petitioners, can claim an" injur"1 from thealleged executive encroachment of the legislative function to

amend, modif" andGor repeal laws.

%either can standing be conferred on petitioners as taxpa"ers since

petitioners have not established disbursement of public funds in

contravention of law or the Constitution.1' 3 taxpa"er:s suit is

properl" brought onl" when there is an exercise of the spending or

taxing power of Congress.16

3s correctl" pointed out b"respondents, #.$. %o. 1&' does not even re4uire for its

implementation additional appropriation.

3ll told, if we were to follow the strict rule on locus standi , this

petition should be forthwith dismissed on that score. 8he rule on

standing, however, is a matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed

for nontraditional plaintiffs li!e ordinar" citi2ens, taxpa"ers and

legislators when the public interest so re4uires, such as when the

matter is of transcendental importance, of overarching significance

to societ", or of paramount public interest.17 HIJKrLblMN OrQRJllJS lbrJrT

8he 4uestion is, does the issue posed in this petition meet the

exacting standard re4uired for this Court to ta!e the liberal

approach and recogni2e the standing of herein petitionersU chanroblesvirtualawlibrar"

8he instant petition fails to persuade us.

8he subject matter of #.$. %o. 1&' is the grant of authorit" b" the

President to the -ecretar" of +abor to exercise administrative

supervision over the %+C, its regional branches and all its

personnel, including the #xecutive +abor 3rbiters and +abor

3rbiters. ts impact, sans the challenge to its constitutionalit", is











thereb" limited to the departments to which it is addressed. 8a!ing

our cue from the earl" case of $lsen v. %erstein and Rafferty ,1& the

subject executive order can be considered as nothing more or less

than a command from a superior to an inferior. t creates no relation

except between the official who issued it and the officials whoreceived it. t has for its object simpl" the efficient and economical

administration of the affairs of the department to which it is issued

in accordance with the law governing the subject matter.

3dministrative in its nature, the subject order does not pass be"ond

the limits of the departments to which it is directed, hence, it has

not created an" rights in third persons, not even in the fift"

thousand or so union members being represented b" petitioners

who ma" or ma" not have pending cases before the labor arbitersor the %+C.

n fine, considering that the governmental act being 4uestioned has

a limited reach, its impact confined to corridors of the executive

department, this is not one of those exceptional occasions where

the Court is justified in sweeping aside a critical procedural

re4uirement, rooted as it is in the constitutionall" enshrined

principle of separation of powers. 3s succinctl" put b" r. usticee"nato -. Puno in his dissenting opinion in the

first &ilosbayan case=15

. . . VCWourts are neither free to decide all !inds of cases dumped

into their laps nor are the" free to open their doors to all parties or

entities claiming a grievance. 8he rationale for this constitutional

re4uirement of locus standi is b" no means trifle. t is intended Fto

assure a vigorous adversar" presentation of the case, and, perhaps

more importantl" to warrant the judiciar":s overruling the

determination of a coordinate, democraticall" elected organ of

government.F0 t thus goes to the ver" essence of representative

democracies.

. . .









3 lesser but not insignificant reason for screening the standing of

persons who desire to litigate constitutional issues is economic in

character. 9iven the sparseness of our resources, the capacit" of

courts to render efficient judicial service to our people is severel"

limited. <or courts to indiscriminatel" open their doors to all t"pes of suits and suitors is for them to undul" overburden their doc!ets,

and ultimatel" render themselves ineffective dispensers of justice.

8o be sure, this is an evil that clearl" confronts our judiciar" toda".

3ll things considered, whether or not #.$. %o. 1&' is indeed

unconstitutional will have to await the proper part" in a proper case

to assail its validit".

$;ERE:ORE, premises considered, the instant petition dated 7

arch 00* is hereb" /---#/ for lac! of merit. %o costs.

"O OR!ERE!.

un, ' Acting C.J.(, anan*an, u*u@*n, #nar/-

"an+*a, "an)a-Gu+*/rr/, Car*, Au+r*a-Mar+*n/,

Crna, Car*-Mra/, Ca/D, "r., Auna, T*na, an)

Gar*a, JJ., nur.

!a*)/, Jr., C.J., n /a/.

Endnotes:

Documents

AIWA vs Rumulo