You are on page 1of 3

Carmen Planas Vs.

Jose Gil, Commissioner of Civil Service


Facts:
Planas was a member of the municipal board of the City of Manila. This case
arose because of the publication of a statement made by the Petitioner criticizing
the acts of certain government officials in connection with the general election for
Assemblymen. It was published in La Vanguardia. The day after the publication of
Planas' statement, she received a letter from the President, through Secretary
Vargas, ordering her to appear and explain herself to the Commissioner of Civil
Service regarding the statement she made.
Planas then contends that the respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate
her since it violates Article VII, Sec. 11 of the 1935 Constitution. She also said that
the President cannot delegate his power to any other person.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not the respondent has jurisdiction to investigate her.
(a)Whether or not the President can delegate his power to Sec. Vargas,
to the Commissioner of Civil Service, or any other person.
(2) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief
Executive
Held:
(1) Yes. The statement she made tend to create a general discontent, and
hatred among the people against their government. The interest of the public
service requires that these charges be investigated, so that, if found untrue and
made without justifiable motives, the party making them may be proceeded against
in accordance with section 2440, in connection with section 2078, of the Reveised
Administrative Code. This is essential to render effective the authority vested in the
President by the Constitution to "take care the laws be faithfully executed"(Sec 11,
par 1, Art. VII).
(a) Yes. The president can delegate his power. Article VII of the
Constitution begins in its section 1 with the declaration of that "The Executive
power shall be vested in a President of the Philippines." All executive authority is
thus vested in him. The Constitution grant him the power to exercise general
supervision over all local governments and take care the laws to be faithfully
executed, and authorizes him to order an investigation of the act or conduct of any
public servants.
(2) No. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief
Executive under the doctrine of separation of powers. However, the Court may

inquire or question the validity or constitutionality of the acts of the Chief Executive
when his acts are properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. In other
words, the Constitution made the Court to allocate constitutional boundaries.

Planas v Gil
G.R. No. L-46440 January 18, 1939
Laurel, J.:
Facts:
1. The case stemmed from a statement made by petitioner which was published in
a newspaper (La Guardia) wherein he criticized certain government officials acts as
well as the election of Assemblyman in 1938. Petitioner was a member of the
municipal board of Manila.
2. An investigation directed by the authority of the President was conducted by the
respondent Commissioner of Civil Service. Hence this petition for prohibition where
petitioner contends that respondent lacks the jurisdiction to investigate him and
that it violates Art. 7, Sec.11 (1) of the Constitution, as it seeks to remove or
suspend him.
ISSUE: W/N the President has the legal authority to order the investigation
RULING:
YES. Provided the investigation should be in accordance with law.
The constitution grants to the President the powers of control and supervision. The
power to exercise general supervision over all local governments and to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed authorizes him to order an investigation of the
act or conduct of the petitioner herein.
Supervision is not a meaningless thing. It is an active power. It is certainly not
without limitation, but it at least implies authority to inquire into facts and
conditions in order to render the power real and effective. If supervision is to be
conscientious and rational, and not automatic and brutal, it must be founded upon a
knowledge of actual facts and conditions disclosed after careful study and
investigation.
The President in the exercise of the executive power under the Constitution may act
through the heads of the executive departments. The heads of the executive
departments are his authorized assistants and agents in the performance of his
executive duties, and their official acts, promulgated in the regular course of
business, are presumptively his acts.

The power of removal which the President may exercise directly and the practical
necessities of efficient government brought about by administrative centralization
easily make the President the head of the administration.
- Source: http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/planas-v-gil.html

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. Philippine Coconut


Authority, G.R. No. 110526, February 10, 1998
FACTS: Challenged here is the decision of the Philippine Coconut Authority to issue
permits to certain applicants for the establishment of new desiccated coconut
processing plants. Petitioner Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators alleged
that said decision is beyond the power of the PCA and prayed that said
administrative agency must be compelled to observe its mandatory duty under the
provisions of statutes reguating the desiccated coconut industry. The PCA
contended however that the petition should be denied on the ground that petitioner
has a pending appeal before the Office of the President and the latter is guilty of
forum-shopping and that it failed to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal to the President must be made by the petitioner
before judicial review is taken.
HELD: The rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may
seek a judicial review has obviously no application in the case at bar. The resolution
in question was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rule-making or legislative
power. It is settled that only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies
made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion
doctrine. The exhaustion doctrine stands as a bar to an action which is not yet
complete. Petition is granted.
http://subaylawco23.weebly.com/political.html