Lawyerly

GR No. 208566

2013-11-19

GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

While the previous "Congressional Pork Barrel" was apparently discontinued in 1972 after Martial Law was declared, an era when "one man controlled the legislature,"[19] the reprieve was only temporary. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa had already introduced a new item in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called the "Support for Local Development Projects" (SLDP) under the article on "National Aid to Local Government Units". Based on reports,[20] it was under the SLDP that the practice of giving lump-sum allocations to individual legislators began, with each assemblyman receiving P500,000.00. Thereafter, assemblymen would communicate their project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management for approval. Then, the said ministry would release the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Governments, which would, in turn, issue the checks to the city or municipal treasurers in the assemblyman's locality. It has been further reported that "Congressional Pork Barrel" projects under the SLDP also began to cover not only public works projects, or so-called "hard projects", but also "soft projects",[21] or non-public works projects such as those which would fall under the categories of, among others, education, health and livelihood.[22]

GR No. 177131

2011-06-07

BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The BSP maintains that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7278 suggest that "governance of BSP has come to be overwhelmingly a private affair or nature, with government participation restricted to the seat of the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports." [21] It cites Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Commission on Audit [22] wherein the Court declared that, "PAL, having ceased to be a government-owned or controlled corporation is no longer under the audit jurisdiction of the COA." [23] Claiming that the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7278 constituted a supervening event that changed the BSP's corporate identity in the same way that the government's privatization program changed PAL's, the BSP makes the case that the government no longer has control over it; thus, the COA cannot use the Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission as its basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the issuance of COA Resolution No. 99-011. [24] The BSP further claims as follows: It is not far-fetched, in fact, to concede that BSP's funds and assets are private in character. Unlike ordinary public corporations, such as provinces, cities, and municipalities, or government-owned and controlled corporations, such as Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines, the assets and funds of BSP are not derived from any government grant. For its operations, BSP is not dependent in any way on any government appropriation; as a matter of fact, it has not even been included in any appropriations for the government. To be sure, COA has not alleged, in its Resolution No. 99-011 or in the Memorandum of its General Counsel, that BSP received, receives or continues to receive assets and funds from any agency of the government. The foregoing simply point to the private nature of the funds and assets of petitioner BSP.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments.[2] The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.[3] Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.[4]

GR No. 188456

2009-09-10

H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC

VELASCO JR., J.

Under the two-envelope system designed under the RFP,[19] each participating bidder shall submit, as part of its bid, an Eligibility Envelope[20] that should inter alia establish the bidder's eligibility to bid. On the other hand, the second envelope, or the Bid Envelope itself, shall contain two envelopes that, in turn, shall contain the technical proposal and the financial proposal, respectively.[21]

GR No. 180363

2009-04-28

EDGAR Y. TEVES v. COMELEC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58]

GR No. 156052

2008-02-13

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA

CORONA, J.

[Supervision] means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer ha[s] done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[163]

GR NO. 166062

2006-09-26

SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.[38] This Court has defined the power of control as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[39] The power of supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties."[40] Under the Administrative Code of 1987[41]:Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs. x x x Springing from the power of control is the doctrine of qualified political agency, wherein the acts of a subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, unless actually disapproved by the latter.[42] Thus, taken with the powers of control and supervision, the acts of Department Secretaries in the performance of their duties are presumed to be the act of the President, unless and until the President alters, modifies, or nullifies the same. By arguing that "[w]hat is important is that the amended Information has not been withdrawn, and or recalled by the Honorable Ombudsman, [a] clear showing that the latter acknowledged/upheld the act of the Special Prosecutor in signing the Amended Information,"[43] respondent People claims that the doctrine of qualified political agency should be applied as well to the relationship between the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.

GR NO. 139554

2006-07-21

ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA

CARPIO, J.

The President's power of control applies to the acts or decisions of all officers in the Executive branch. This is true whether such officers are appointed by the President or by heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The power of control means the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion.[42]

GR NO. 155027

2006-02-28

VETERANS FEDERATION OF PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO T. REYES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court has defined the power of control as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former to that of the latter."[13] The power of supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties."[14] These definitions are synonymous with the definitions in the assailed Department Circular No. 04, while the other provisions of the assailed department circular are mere consequences of control and supervision as defined.

GR No. 138200

2002-02-27

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ROBERTO MABALOT

BUENA, J.

"The President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." By definition, control is "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[10] It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law.[11]

	GR No. 208566 2013-11-19	GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
While the previous "Congressional Pork Barrel" was apparently discontinued in 1972 after Martial Law was declared, an era when "one man controlled the legislature,"[19] the reprieve was only temporary. By 1982, the Batasang Pambansa had already introduced a new item in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) called the "Support for Local Development Projects" (SLDP) under the article on "National Aid to Local Government Units". Based on reports,[20] it was under the SLDP that the practice of giving lump-sum allocations to individual legislators began, with each assemblyman receiving P500,000.00. Thereafter, assemblymen would communicate their project preferences to the Ministry of Budget and Management for approval. Then, the said ministry would release the allocation papers to the Ministry of Local Governments, which would, in turn, issue the checks to the city or municipal treasurers in the assemblyman's locality. It has been further reported that "Congressional Pork Barrel" projects under the SLDP also began to cover not only public works projects, or so-called "hard projects", but also "soft projects",[21] or non-public works projects such as those which would fall under the categories of, among others, education, health and livelihood.[22]
	GR No. 177131 2011-06-07	BOY SCOUTS OF PHILIPPINES v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The BSP maintains that the provisions of Republic Act No. 7278 suggest that "governance of BSP has come to be overwhelmingly a private affair or nature, with government participation restricted to the seat of the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports." [21] It cites Philippine Airlines Inc. v. Commission on Audit [22] wherein the Court declared that, "PAL, having ceased to be a government-owned or controlled corporation is no longer under the audit jurisdiction of the COA." [23] Claiming that the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7278 constituted a supervening event that changed the BSP's corporate identity in the same way that the government's privatization program changed PAL's, the BSP makes the case that the government no longer has control over it; thus, the COA cannot use the Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations Commission as its basis for the exercise of its jurisdiction and the issuance of COA Resolution No. 99-011. [24] The BSP further claims as follows: It is not far-fetched, in fact, to concede that BSP's funds and assets are private in character. Unlike ordinary public corporations, such as provinces, cities, and municipalities, or government-owned and controlled corporations, such as Land Bank of the Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines, the assets and funds of BSP are not derived from any government grant. For its operations, BSP is not dependent in any way on any government appropriation; as a matter of fact, it has not even been included in any appropriations for the government. To be sure, COA has not alleged, in its Resolution No. 99-011 or in the Memorandum of its General Counsel, that BSP received, receives or continues to receive assets and funds from any agency of the government. The foregoing simply point to the private nature of the funds and assets of petitioner BSP.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments.[2] The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.[3] Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.[4]
	GR No. 188456 2009-09-10	H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
Under the two-envelope system designed under the RFP,[19] each participating bidder shall submit, as part of its bid, an Eligibility Envelope[20] that should inter alia establish the bidder's eligibility to bid. On the other hand, the second envelope, or the Bid Envelope itself, shall contain two envelopes that, in turn, shall contain the technical proposal and the financial proposal, respectively.[21]
	GR No. 180363 2009-04-28	EDGAR Y. TEVES v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58]
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
[Supervision] means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer ha[s] done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[163]
	GR NO. 166062 2006-09-26	SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(c) To perform such other duties assigned to it by the Ombudsman.[38] This Court has defined the power of control as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[39] The power of supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties."[40] Under the Administrative Code of 1987[41]:Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs. x x x Springing from the power of control is the doctrine of qualified political agency, wherein the acts of a subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, unless actually disapproved by the latter.[42] Thus, taken with the powers of control and supervision, the acts of Department Secretaries in the performance of their duties are presumed to be the act of the President, unless and until the President alters, modifies, or nullifies the same. By arguing that "[w]hat is important is that the amended Information has not been withdrawn, and or recalled by the Honorable Ombudsman, [a] clear showing that the latter acknowledged/upheld the act of the Special Prosecutor in signing the Amended Information,"[43] respondent People claims that the doctrine of qualified political agency should be applied as well to the relationship between the Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor.
	GR NO. 139554 2006-07-21	ARMITA B. RUFINO v. BALTAZAR N. ENDRIGA CARPIO, J.
The President's power of control applies to the acts or decisions of all officers in the Executive branch. This is true whether such officers are appointed by the President or by heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The power of control means the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion.[42]
	GR NO. 155027 2006-02-28	VETERANS FEDERATION OF PHILIPPINES v. ANGELO T. REYES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has defined the power of control as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former to that of the latter."[13] The power of supervision, on the other hand, means "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties."[14] These definitions are synonymous with the definitions in the assailed Department Circular No. 04, while the other provisions of the assailed department circular are mere consequences of control and supervision as defined.
	GR No. 138200 2002-02-27	SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. ROBERTO MABALOT BUENA, J.
"The President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." By definition, control is "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[10] It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law.[11]

JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA