Tondo Medical v CA
PROMULGATED: July 17 , 2007
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
PETITIONER: Tondo Medical Center Employees Association
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals
RELATED PROVISION/S:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxx
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
xxx
FACTS:
President Estrada issued Executive Order No. 102, entitled “Redirecting the
Functions and Operations of the Department of Health,” which provided for
the changes in the roles, functions, and organizational processes of the DOH.
Under the assailed executive order, the DOH refocused its mandate from
being the sole provider of health services to being a provider of specific
health services and technical assistance, as a result of the devolution of basic
services to local government units.
• In 1999, the Department of Health launched the Health Sector Reform
Agenda which provided for five general areas of reform, one of which was
the provision on fiscal autonomy to government hospitals particularly the
collection of socialized user fees.
• On May 24, 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued EO 102,
entitled "Redirecting the Functions and Operations of the Department of
Health" pursuant to Section 17 of the Local Government Code, which
devolved basic services, facilities, health-related functions and
responsibilities to the LGUs
• Petitioners assailed that EO was unconstitutional for being in excess of the
President's power, that the Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP) –
which included shifts in policy directions, structure and organization, staffing
and resource allocation – was implemented prior to DBM approval, the
possible loss of jobs, and implementation errors
• The Court of Appeals denied said petition due to multiple procedural
defects, which proved fatal. The CA also ruled that the HSRA cannot be
declared void for violating Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II,
Section 1 of Article III, Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII, and Sections 1
and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the 1987 Constitution and that it is within the
realm of the political department
• A Motion For Reconsideration was filed, but was denied in a Resolution
dated 7 March 2005, hence this petition.
KIND OF CASE/PETITION:
Certiorari of a decision of the CA
ISSUES/ HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N EO 102 is unconstitutional
NO
PETITIONER: --
RESPONDENT: --
COURT: There is a mere change in roles, functions, and organizational
process of DOH. This is executive in nature.
2. W/N Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II, Section 1 of Article III,
Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII, and Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article XV
are violated
NO
PETITIONER: EO 102 can have a detrimental effect to the health of the
people. Because of the changes, medical attendance may be prolonged.
RESPONDENT: Within the realm of the political department. Hence, it
cannot be made a justiciable cause.
COURT: No justiciable controversy. The assailed provisions are not self-
executing. They are for moral incentives of legislation and not as judicially
enforceable right. The standing is determined by the merits of the case
even in cases of transcendental importance.
RULING:
Petition is DENIED. CA Decision AFFIRMED.