Today is Friday, November 22, 2019

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

de Leon for petitioner.

espondents Commissioner of Civil Service from conducting the investigation ordered by authority of the President of the Philippines. T
ain government officials in connection with the general election for Assemblymen held on November 8, 1938. The statement as publis

n of the opposition as long as in the opposition group there are people who present their candidacies and then speculate on these ca
ialized their candidacies.

may devote all his time to the administration of public affairs for the welfare of the people, but the President was the first to play politic

nt candidates supported by the people from going to the National Assembly, and with frauds and violations of all rules of the civil serv
ave been mobilized to insure the victory of the candidates of the administration, depriving the people of their right to vote for candidat

he extent of speaking at meetings in the Province of Rizal to counteract the avalanche of votes for the opposition, instead of staying i
ent forever; never has it triad to fight fairly.

s, but the situation in the United States is different. There the President is allowed to run for reelection while in the Philippines the Con
new National Assembly will change this wise provision of our Constitution to permit the reelection of President Manuel L. Quezon.

ved a letter, Annex A, signed as follows: "By authority of the President: Jorge B. Vargas, Secretary to the President," in which letter th

t of the Philippines has violated the Constitution in that he has taken part in politics, expressing his preference for the candidates of th
s of the Nacionalista Party and of the administration have won the election through frauds and violations of the civil service rules; (4) T
 or accompanied by counsel, at 9 o'clock a. m., on November the 22nd, to prove the statements made by you. Failure to sustain your

ent and delivered to him a letter, Annex B, in which she voiced objection to the authority of the respondent to conduct the investigatio
diction on November 26, 1938. It was at this state of the investigation that the petitioner filed in this court her original petition for prohi
petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was denied by resolution of this court dated November 25, 1938. The next
connection with said investigation until the jurisdictional issue could be finally passed upon by this court. On the same day, the reque
ecember 3, 1938, and to testify in her behalf and produce such other evidence as she might desire to present in support of the charge
l filed his amended answer accordingly.

ew to her suspension or removal in connection with her statement of November 17th;

Article VII, sec. 11 (1) of the Constitution of the Philippines and is not warranted by any statutory provision;

ilippines, petitioner, as Councilor of the City of Manila, cannot be investigated administratively with a view to her suspension or remov

tuency alone, unless such acts constitute offenses punishable under our penal laws, and not to execute officials belonging to a party

the exercise of her right to discuss freely political questions cannot properly be the subject of an administrative investigation had with

vember 21st Annex "C", constitute sedition or any other criminal offense in that said statement "tends to create general discontent, an
the next National Assembly as an illegal body, constituted by men who been elected through wholesale frauds and violations of the c
ect of an administrative investigation with a view to suspension or removal held behind closed doors, with the power of final decision r

nnexes A and C both signed `By authority of the President: Jorge B. Vargas, Secretary to the President' is without any force or effect
B. Vargas or to any other person;

is Honorable Court, would constitute an exercise of arbitrary, inquisitorial, unlawful, and oppressive powers on the part of respondent
cal conduct of government officials.

missioner of Civil Service to desist from the investigation sought to be conducted by him of petitioner, with a view to her suspension o

ther in connection with said investigation;

") and the respondent's resolution dated November 26, 1938 (Annex "E"'), under which respondent seeks to undertake the investigati

seem just and equitable.

es contained in the petitioner's statement published on November 17, 1938, by virtue of and pursuant to the order of His Excellency, t
 y section 11 (1) of Article VII of the Constitution and section 64 (c) of the Revised Administrative Code (Id.);

gation in question is a matter on which the opinion of the Chief Executive is conclusive and not subject to review by the courts (par. 4,

ment service is independent and exclusive of any judicial action that the interested parties may institute arising from the same act or c

o his or her constituency alone and is not subject to any administrative investigation but only to a criminal prosecution in court, has no

ioned by the Constitution and statutory provisions (par. 5, [b]);

s suffered any grievance that calls for the court's intervention, for it is not alleged that petitioner has been removed or suspended from

ntertain the same (par. 9); and .

wers (par. 10).

risdiction of this court over the acts of the Chief Executive. He contends that "under the separation of powers marked by the Constitu
cisions of this court: Severino vs. Governor-General ([1910], 16 Phil., 366); Abueva vs. Wood ([1924], 45 Phil., 612); and Alejandrino
o entertain these proceedings, then, the same should be dismissed as a matter of course; otherwise, the merits of the controversy sh

his official acts and courts will neither direct nor restrain executive action in such cases. The rule is non-interference. But from this le
e classical separation of governmental powers, whether viewed in the light of the political philosophy of Aristotle, Locke, or Montesqu
erved by Justice Holmes in a case of Philippine origin, we cannot lay down "with mathematical precision and divide the branches into
nate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other." (Springer vs. Government [1928], 277 U. S., 189; 72 Law. ed.,
Court is entrusted expressly or by necessary implication the obligation of determining in appropriate cases the constitutionality or val
rnment and this result is one of the necessary corollaries of the "system of checks and balance" of the government established.

d to act in a particular way. The Commissioner of Civil Service is the party respondent and the theory is advanced by the Governmen
n Planas. The argument is farfetched. A mere plea that a subordinate officer of the government is acting under orders from the Chief
e nature of a sovereign passport for all the subordinate officials and employees of the Executive Department to the extent that at the
eneral, supra, Abueva vs. Wood, supra, and Alejandrino vs. Quezon, supra, are different, and the doctrines laid down therein must be
n of the issues presented are mere obiter dicta.

ance of other than judicial or quasi-judicial functions (50 C. J., 658), its issuance and enforcement are regulated by statute and in this
ode of Civil Procedure.) The terms "judicial" and "ministerial" used with reference to "functions" in the statute are undoubtedly compr
in excess of jurisdiction. The statutory rule in this jurisdiction is that the writ of prohibition is not confined exclusively to courts or tribu
are without or in excess of his authority. Not infrequently, "the writ is granted, where it is necessary for the orderly administration of jus
iz [1937], 35 Off. Gaz., 2164.) This court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the instant proceedings and will accordingly proceed to dete

er, the issues to what is considered is the fundamental legal proposition presented, we are asked in these proceedings to prohibited t
he issuance of the order, but it is contended "that the said investigation with a view to petitioner's suspension or removal is against Ar
nal and legal authority of the President to order the investigation which has given rise to the present controversy.

sident of the Philippines. Article VII of the Constitution begins in its section 1 with the declaration the "The Executive power shall be ve
. 1, last clause.) In the fulfillment of this duty which he cannot evade, he is granted specific and express powers and functions. (Art. V
0; 47 Sup. Ct. Rep., 21; Willoughby, Constitution of the United States, sec. 953, citing Taft's Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers, p
599.) The Constitution provides that the President "shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices" (Art. VII,
ional grant. The President in the exercise of the executive power under the Constitution may act through the heads of the executive d
, are presumptively his acts. (Runkle vs. United States [1887], 122 U. S., 543; 30 Law. ed., 1167; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 1141. See also U.
Jackson [1836], 13 Pet., 498; 10 Law. ed., 246.) The power of removal which the President may exercise directly and the practical n
sec. 959.) Independently of any statutory provision authorizing the President to conduct an investigation of the nature involved in this
er all local governments and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed must be construed to authorized him to order an investig
ns in order to render the power real and effective. If supervision is to be conscientious and rational, and not automatic and brutal, it m

reluctant to yield to the proposition that the President of the Philippines who is endowed with broad and extraordinary powers by our
he investigation of the petitioner in this case. We should avoid that result.

eaks of general supervision which is distinct from the control given to the President over executive departments, bureaus and offices.
stitutional Convention shows that the grant of the supervisory authority of Chief Executive in this regard was in the nature of a compro
the legal theory which sanctions the possession by the state of absolute control over local governments (Booten vs. Pinson, L. R. A.
ent of a strong national government.

as follows:

ave such specific powers and duties as are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law and also, in particular, the powers and duti

xxx xxx xxx

on of any action or the conduct of any person in the Government service, and in connection therewith to designate the official, commi

consistent with the Constitution and has not been abrogated or repealed by the National Assembly. (See sec. 2, Art. XV, Constitution

uld be in accordance with law; that the petitioner as an elective official can be proceed against administratively only on the grounds s
constituency alone. At the risk of repetition, it should be observed that in the letter addressed by Secretary Vargas, by authority of the
he has taken part in politics, expressing his preference for the candidates of the Nacionalista Party; (2) That the whole government m
tion through frauds and violations of the civil service rules; (4) That the administration does not permit the people to freely elect the c
vestigator of the petitioner, it is stated: "The charges contained in the foregoing statement tend to create general discontent, and hatr
bly as an illegal body, constituted by men who have been elected through wholesale frauds and violations of the civil service rules. Th
d untrue and made without justifiable motives, the party making them may be proceeded against in accordance with section 2440, in
v. Adm. Code), there is weight in the argument that the investigation would still be in order if for no other purpose than to cause a full
er effective the authority vested in the President by the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Sec. 11, par. 1
uted" is more an imposition of an obligation than a conferment of power. His oath requires him to "faithfully and conscientiously fulfill"
r the express terms of the Constitution but also includes the due enforcement of rights, duties, obligations, prerogatives and immunitie

ttention to the provision of section 1 (pars. 1 and 8) of the bill of Rights. She also urges that " in the supposition that the statement in q
e statement." (P. 11, printed memorandum of the petitioner.) We are vigilantly alive to the necessity of maintaining and protecting the
origin rather than its derivation. We do not forget that when repression of political and religious discussion became intense — when
nd appealed for "the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties" ("Areopagitica", 73, 74, A
1), and that criticism of the constitution and legislation, of government measures or policies cannot be suppressed or prevented (U. S.
she being investigated because she had exercised that right. She has a perfect right to criticize the Government, its administration, i
gation conducted to elicit the truth or falsity of the charges formulated by her. Otherwise, the guarantee which, in the language of We
Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive