Banda vs Ermita GR No.

166620 April 20, 2010

J. Leonardo De Castro

Art VII Sec 1: The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

FACTS:

- This is a case challenging the constitutionality of EO No. 378 issued by Pres. Arroyo.
Petitioners characterize their action as a class suit filed on their own behalf and of all their
co-employees at the National Printing Office (NPO).
- EO No 285 – provided for the creation of the NPO from the merger of the Government
Printing Office and the relevant printing units of the Philippine Information Agency (PIA)
(*this was under the term of Pres. Cory Aquino).
- Sec 6, EO No 285 says that the NPO shall have exclusive printing jurisdiction over the
following:
o Printing, binding and distribution of all standard and accountable forms of national,
provincial city and municipal governments, including govt corp.
o Printing of official ballots
o Printing of public docs such as Official Gazette, GAA, Phil Reports and development
information materials of PIA
o *the office can also accept other government printing jobs but will not have exclusive
jurisdiction
- EO No. 378 – issued by Pres. Arroyo amending Sec 6, EO No. 285. This states (among
others):
o Sec 1: NPO xxx shall no longer enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over the printing services
requirements of the government xxx It shall have to compete with the private sector
except in printing election paraphernalia.
o Sec 3: In the exercise of its functions, amount to be appropriated for the programs,
projects and activities of the NPO in the GAA shall be limited to its income without the
additional financial support from the government.
- Basically, EO 378 allows printing services to come from private sectors through competitive
bidding subject to the condition that the services given by the private body is of superior
quality and lower in cost than what is offered by NPO. It also limited NPO’s appropriation to
only its income.
- Petitioners say that (1) it is beyond the executive powers of Pres. Arroyo to amend or repeal
EO No. 285 because it was made when Pres Cory Aquino still exercised legislative power
under the Freedom Constitution and (2) EO 378 violates petitioner’s security of tenure as it
paves the way of the gradual abolition of the NPO (baka daw kasi maabolish ung NPO)

ISSUES (*number 1 is more relevant for our discussion):

1. W/N EO No. 378 is constitutional? W/N Pres. Arroyo can amend or repeal EO No 285 by the
mere issuance of another executive order, provided that EO No. 285 by Pres Cory Aquino
was issued under the Freedom Constitution while Cory still had legislative powers so only
Congress through legislation can validly amend the EO?
 2. W/N EO 378 would lead to the eventual abolition of the NPO violating the security of tenure
of the employees?

HELD:

1. Yes. It is constitutional and Pres. Arroyo can amend/repeal EO 285 by mere issuance of EO
378.
a. President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive
department in line with the President’s constitutionally granted power of control
over executive offices and by virtue of previous delegation of legislative power to
reorganize executive offices under existing statutes.
b. NPO, an agency part of the Office of the Press Secretary, is undisputedly part of the
Office of the President.
c. Sec 31 of the Admin Code of 1987 - authorizes the president to (1) restructure
internal organization of the Office of the President xxx (2) transfer functions or
offices from the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency in the
Executive Branch and vice versa.  so President can also modify functional and
internal structure of the Office of the President
d. In this case, there was neither an abolition of NPO nor removal of its functions xxx.
NPO still remains the main printing arm of the government xxx but in the interest of
greater economy and efficiency and profitability, it must now compete with the
private sector for certain gov’t printing jobs xxx…
e. At most, there was only an alteration of the main function of the NPO by limiting the
exclusivity of its printing responsibility to election forms.
f. Larin v Executive Secretary – showed that the President is authorized to effect
organizational changes including creating offices in the department or agency
concerned.
g. Buklod ng KAwaning EIIB v Zamora – court traced from the GAA that the
President has the authority to effect organizational changes (like in Larin) and that
the heads of departments, bureaus, offices etc in the Executive Dept. are directed to
xxx adopt measures that will result in streamlined organization and improved
overall performance of their respective agencies.
h. In this case, the GAA of 2003 which was reenacted in 2004 (the year of the issuance
of Arroyo’s EO 378) likewise gave the president the authority to effect wide variety
of organizational changes in any department or agency in the Executive
Department…. Even those already funded by the GAA.
i. The present case is neither an abolition nor transfer of office. It is a mere
reorganization under the provisions of the law consisting mainly of streamlining the
NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy and efficiency. It is an act well within the
authority of the President.
j. Tondo Medical Center v CA – involved a structural and functional reorganization
of the DOH under an EO. Court ruled that President may, by executive or
administrative order, direct the reorganization of government entities under the
Executive Department.
 k. Sec 17 of Art VII of the 1987 Constitution – The president shall have control of all
executive departments, bureaus and offices.
l. Sec 31, Book III, Chap 10 of EO 292 aka Admin Code of 1987 – 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….

Summarized answer:

m. The issuance of Executive Order No. 378 by President Arroyo is an exercise of a

delegated legislative power granted by the aforementioned Section 31, Chapter 10,
Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides for the
continuing authority of the President to reorganize the Office of the President, "in
order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." This is a matter already well-
entrenched in jurisprudence. The reorganization of such an office through executive
or administrative order is also recognized in the Administrative Code of 1987.
n. Beginning with the Larin Case and cases after that, the court has noted that certain
provisions in the general appropriation laws likewise reflect the power of the
President to reorganize executive offices or agencies even to that extent of
modifying or realigning appropriations for that purpose.
o. EO 378, which made reforms in the NPO to achieve efficiency in the delivery of its
services and limiting its funding to make it a self-reliant agency able to compete
with private sector, is well within the power of the President under her continuing
delegated legislative power to reorganize her own office.  applicable lang ito sa
Office of the president not sa judiciary or legislature or other bodies.
p. Also, do note that under Dario v Mison, these reorganizations have been regarded
as valid only if they are pursued in good faith.  in this case, good faith naman.
2. No. Here, petitioners think that the EO of Arroyo is done in bad faith (since mawawalan sila
ng work etc.) but the burden to prove this is upon them. They failed to show that the
decrease in their income would lead to an abolition of the NPO. They likewise failed to
prove that the reorganization was tainted with political considerations and not for
efficiency purposes.

OTHER NOTES:

1. W/N this was indeed a class suit?

- Requisites of a class suit:
o The subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many
persons
o Parties affected are so numerous its impracticable to bring them all to court
o Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the
class and can fully protect the interest of all concerned
- No.
o The petition failed to state the number of NPO employees who would be affected by
the EO.  (May 549 employees ang NPO and the 67 petitioners were but a small
 fraction of the NPO employees.. And of that 67, 20 lang yung mentioned as having duly
subscribed the petition before the notary public. So, 20 petitioners lang yung counted
as to have presented this case)
o Also, there was a Manifestation of Desistance by the President of NPO Workers
Association (NAPOWA) saying that they oppose the filing of this instant petition in
any court  clearly, may divergence of opinions and views among the members of
the class sought to be represented in this suit
o The instant case cannot be deemed as a class suit since it cannot be said that the
petitioners sufficiently represent the interests of the entire class.
-