PAGE 1
3. POWER TO REORGANIZE
Anak Mindanao Party-List v. Executive Secretary
G.R. 166052 – August 29, 2007
J. Carpio-Morales
Topic: Power to Reorganize
Doctrine: The Constitution’s grant of the power of control to the President justifies his or her
reorganization of offices within the executive department.
Petitioners: Anak Mindanao Party-List Group as represented by Rep. Mujiv Hataman, and
Mamalo Descendants Organization as represented by its Chairman Romy Pardi
Respondents: Executive Secretary Hon. Eduardo Ermita, and Secretary of Agrarian/Land
Reform Hon. Rene Villa
Case Summary: In 2004, President Gloria Arroyo issued E.O. 364, which transformed the
Dept. of Agrarian Reform into the Dept. of Land Reform (DLR), and placed the
Presidential Commission for Urban Poor (PCUP) and the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under the DLR’s control and supervision. A month later, E.O.
379 was issued, which amended the previous law, and instead made NCIP an “attached
agency” of the DLR. Petitioners filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of both
orders, alleging, among others, that it violated separation of powers. The Court ruled,
however, that the Constitution’s grant of power of control to the President justifies the
reorganization of offices within the executive department. This is further supported by the
Admin. Code of 1987, which provides that the President may transfer any agency under the
Office of the President to any other department or agency, subject to the policy in the
Executive Office, and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.
Facts:
 Sept. 27, 2004: Pres. Gloria Arroyo issued E.O. 364, which transformed the Dept. of
Agrarian Reform into the Dept. of Land Reform.
o Under the law, both the Presidential Commission for Urban Poor (PCUP)
and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) were placed
under supervision and control of the DLR.
 A month later, Pres. Arroyo issued E.O. 379, which amended the previous law.
o Instead of being “under control and supervision” of DLR, the NCIP was
made an “attached agency” of said Department.
 Petitioners Anak Mindanao Party-List (AMPL) and Mamalo Descendants
Organization (MDO) filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing
the constitutionality of E.O. 364 and 379. They allege that the two laws are
unconstitutional for the ff. reasons:
o They violate the constitutional principles of separation of powers and rule
of law
o They violate the constitutional scheme and policies for agrarian reform,
urban land reform, indigenous peoples’ rights, and ancestral domain
o They violate the constitutional right of the people to participation in
decision-making,
 Aug. 23, 2005: Through E.O. 456, the Dept. of Land Reform reverted to its former
name, Dept. of Agrarian Reform.
Issues + Held:
1. W/N the transformation of the “Department of Agrarian Reform” to the
“Department of Land Reform” is unconstitutional – MOOT.
o The issue became moot and academic when DLR reverted to its former
name, DAR, through E.O. 456.
2. W/N petitioners have legal standing – YES (AMPL) and NO (MDO).
o On AMPL:
 Anak Mindanao is a registered party-list group with one seat in
the House of Representatives, occupied by Rep. Hataman. His
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
constituency includes indigenous peoples (Lumads), peasants and
urban poor in Mindanao.
 The Court has ruled that a member of the House has the standing
to “maintain inviolate” the prerogatives, powers, and privileges
vested by the Constitution in his office.
o On MDO:
 The Court has ruled that a party who assails the constitutionality
of a law must have sustained an actual or threatened injury
resulting from such law.
 MDO’s claims of “negative impact” and “probable setbacks” are
too abstract to be judicially cognizable, and the causation
between the alleged injury and the subject laws too thin.
3. W/N the subject laws violated the principle of separation of powers – NO.
[Relevant issue!]
o AMPL argues:
 Since the DAR, PCUP, and NCIP were created by statutes, they
can only be transformed by statutes, and not executive orders.
 While executive power is vested in the President, who as Chief
Executive holds power of control over all executive departments,
this power of control (including the power to reorganize) is
qualified and limited, for it cannot be exercised in a manner
contrary to the intent of law.
 Since the PCUP and NCIP were created as independent
agencies with distinct mandates, this should be
respected by the President.
o As head of the Executive Department, the President is Chief Executive.
 Under the Constitution,1 he has control over the executive
department, bureaus, and offices. This means that he has
authority to directly assume the functions of an executive
department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of
its officials.
 Corollary to the power of control, he also has the duty of
supervising and enforcing laws for the maintenance of general
peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power
over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to
discharge his duties effectively.
 The Constitution’s express grant of the power of control in
the President justifies an executive action to carry out
reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.
o In enacting a statute, the legislature is presumed to have deliberated
with full knowledge of all existing laws and jurisprudence on the
subject. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute
which places an agency under the Office of the President, it was in
accordance with existing laws and jurisprudence on the President’s
power to reorganize.
 In establishing an executive department, bureau or office, the
legislature necessarily places the agency somewhere in the
executive department’s administrative structure. However, this
determination is merely primary, and is subject to the President’s
continuing authority to reorganize such structure.
o Although unnecessary, there are laws which expressly grant the President
broad authority to carry out reorganization measures, such as the
Administrative Code of 1987:
 Sec. 30. Functions of Agencies under the Office of the President.
– Agencies under the Office of the President shall continue to
operate and function in accordance with their respective charters
or laws creating them, except as otherwise provided in this Code
or by law.
1
Art. VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
PAGE 2
 Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his
Office. – The 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. For this
purpose, he may take any of the following actions: xxx (3)
Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any
other department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the
Office of the President from other departments or agencies.
o In carrying out laws into practical operation, the President is best
equipped to assess whether an executive agency ought to continue
operating in accordance with its charter or the law creating it.
 While the legislature is also capable of making such an
assessment, the Administrative Code underscores the need to
provide the President with suitable solutions to certain situations
in order to best carry out the power of control.
o To remain effective and efficient, the Office of the President must be
capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the manner he
deems fit to carry out his directives and policies. After all, the Office of the
President is the command post of the President.
o As provided by law (^Sec. 31), the President may transfer any agency
under the Office of the President to any other department or agency,
subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency.
 Gauged against these guidelines, the challenged executive orders
may not be said to have been issued with GAD or in violation of
the rule of law.
 The consolidation of functions in E.O. 364 aims to attain the
objectives of “simplicity, economy and efficiency,” which can be
seen in the provision granting PCUP and NCIP access to the
range of services provided by DAR’s technical offices and
support systems.
o Although the NCIP is characterized as an “independent agency,” it is still
subject to the President’s power of control and supervision.
 However, in amending the NCIP to an “attached agency” of the
DAR, the President effectively tempered her exercise of
presidential authority and recognized that degree of
independence.
 The Administrative Code categorizes administrative relationships
into three: (1) supervision and control, (2) administrative
supervision, and (3) attachment. An attached agency has a larger
measure of independence. Such attachment is merely for policy
and program coordination.
o A law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. For it to be
nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of
the Constitution. Any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its
constitutionality.
o AMPL also failed to show how the reorganization would hamper the
exercise of citizen’s rights and privileges. It rested on the ambiguous
conclusion that the reorganization jeopardizes economic, social and
cultural rights, and weakens the indigenous peoples’ rights in favor of the
mining industry.
 It has also not shown that by placing the NCIP under the DAR,
the nature and dynamics of the adjudicatory functions of the
NCIP concerning all claims involving rights of indigenous
cultural communities and indigenous peoples were altered.
Ruling: Petition DENIED. Executive Orders 364 and 379 are not unconstitutional.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
Bagaoisan v. National Tobacco Administration
G.R. No. 152845 – August 5, 2003
J. Vitug
Topic: Organization of Administrative Agencies – The Power to Organize
Doctrine: The President, based on existing laws, has the authority to carry out a reorganization
in any branch or agency of the executive department. The very source of this power is Sec. 31
of EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987): “The President, subject to the policy in the
Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have the
continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.”
Reorganizations are valid provided they are pursued in good faith. A reorganization is carried
out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient.
Petitioners: Drianita Bagaoisan, Fely Madriaga, Shirly Tagaban, Ricardo Sarandi, Susan
Imperial, Benjamin Demdem, Rodolfo Daga, Edgardo Baclig, Gregorio Labayan, Hilario Jerez,
and Maria Corazon Cuanang
Respondents: National Tobacco Administration, represented by Antonio De Guzman and
Perlita Baula
Case Summary: Pres. Joseph Estrada issued EOs 29 and 36 reorganizing the National
Tobacco Administration (NTA). In compliance therewith, the NTA adopted a new
Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP). The petitioners were rank and file
employees of the NTA who were terminated and were not considered in the OSSP. Thus,
they filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the RTC of Batac, Ilocos
Norte to enjoin the NTA from enforcing the notice of termination. The RTC decided in
their favor and ordered the NTA to appoint the petitioners in the new OSSP. On appeal, the
CA reversed the RTC. The SC 1 st Div. affirmed the CA’s decision and denied the
petitioners’ MR. The petitioners thus filed a motion to admit petition for en banc resolution
of the case to address the legal and constitutional issue of reorganizing NTA by an
executive fiat and not by legislative action. The SC En Banc ruled that the case involved
neither an abolition nor transfer of offices; the assailed action was merely a reorganization
under the general provisions of the law consisting of streamlining the NTA in the interest
of simplicity, economy and efficiency. Thus, it was an act well within the authority of the
President motivated and carried out in good faith.
Facts:
 September 30, 1998: Pres. Joseph “Erap” Estrada issued EO 29, entitled “Mandating
the Streamlining of the National Tobacco Administration (NTA),” a government
agency under the Department of Agriculture.
 October 27, 1998: Pres. Estrada issued EO 36, amending EO 29 insofar as the new
staffing pattern was concerned by increasing from 400 to not exceeding 750 the
positions affected thereby.
 October 29, 1998: In compliance with EO 36, the NTA prepared and adopted a new
Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP) which it submitted to the
Office of the President.
 November 11, 1998: The rank and file employees of NTA Batac (herein petitioners),
filed a letter-appeal with the Civil Service Commission and sought its assistance in
recalling the OSSP.
 December 4, 1998: The OSSP was approved by the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) subject to certain revisions. The NTA also created a placement
committee to assist the appointing authority in the selection and placement of
permanent personnel in the revised OSSP.
 June 10, 1996: The petitioners, all occupying different positions at the NTA office in
Batac, Ilocos Norte, received notices of termination of their employment effective 30
days from receipt thereof.
 Hence, they filed with the RTC of Batac, Ilocos Norte a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or
TRO plus reinstatement with backwages.
 RTC: Ordered the NTA to appoint the petitioners in the new OSSP to positions
similar/comparable to their respective former assignments (September 9, 2000).
 CA: The NTA appealed  CA reversed the RTC (February 20, 2002).
 SC 1st Div.: Petitioners appealed  Denied for their failure to sufficiently show any
reversible error on the part of the CA in its decision. Petitioners field an MR 
Denied (January 20, 2003).
PAGE 3
 SC En Banc: Petitioners submitted a “Motion to Admit Petition For En
Banc Resolution” of the case to address a basic question: “the legal and
constitutional issue on whether the NTA may be reorganized by an executive fiat, not
by legislative action” (February 21, 2003).
 Notwithstanding the procedural lapse on the part of petitioners to implead the Office
of the President as party respondent, the SC resolved to rule on the merits of the
petition.
Issue + Held: W/N the President, through the issuance of an EO, can validly carry out the
reorganization of the NTA – YES
 Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. Zamora: The President, based on existing laws, has the
authority to carry out a reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive
department.
o GR: The power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature.
 Reason: The power to create includes the power to destroy. A
public office is either created by the Constitution, by statute, or
by authority of law.
 Thus, except where the office was created by the Constitution
itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that brought it
into existence.
o EX: For bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive department, the
President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate the functions of
a particular office, or certain laws may grant him the broad authority to
carry out reorganization measures.
 Canonizado vs. Aguirre: Reorganization involves the reduction of personnel,
consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of
functions. It takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of
government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and
responsibility between them.
 Reorganizations are valid provided they are pursued in good faith. A reorganization
is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy
more efficient. RA 66562 provides for the circumstances which may be considered as
evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil service employees made as a result of
reorganization:
o Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new
staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned;
o Where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same
functions is created;  Referrals of cases from a Division to the Court En Banc do not take place as just a matter of
o Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of
appointment, performance and merit; 
o Where there is a classification of offices in the department or agency
concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same
functions as the original offices, and
o Where the removal violates the order of separation.
 ITC: As found by the CA, there was no bad faith on the part of the NTA in issuing
the notices of non-appointment to the petitioners.
1) The number of positions in the new staffing pattern did not increase.
Rather, it decreased from 1,125 positions to 750. It is thus natural that
one’s position may be lost through the removal or abolition of an office.
2) The petitioners failed to specifically show which offices were abolished
and the new ones that were created performing substantially the same
functions.
3) The petitioners also failed to prove that less qualified employees were
appointed to the positions to which they applied.
4) The preference stated in Sec. 4 of RA 6656 only means that old employees
should be considered first, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they should
automatically be appointed. This is because the law doesn’t preclude the
infusion of new blood, younger dynamism, or necessary talents into the
government service, provided that the acts of the appointing power are
bonafide for the best interest of the public service and the person chosen
has the needed qualifications.
2
An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the
Implementation of Government Reorganization.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
 EOs 29 and 36 did not abolish the NTA but merely mandated its reorganization
through the streamlining or reduction of its personnel.
o Art. VII, Sec. 17 of the Constitution expressly grants the President control
of all executive departments, bureaus, agencies and offices which may
justify an executive action to inactivate the functions of a particular office
or to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.
o Sec. 78 of the General Provisions of RA 8522 (General Appropriations Act
of FY 1998) decreed that the President may direct changes in the
organization and key positions in any department, bureau or agency
pursuant to Art. VI, Sec. 25 of the Constitution which grants to the
Executive Department the authority to recommend the budget necessary for
its operation. This grant of power includes the authority to evaluate each
government agency under the Executive Department, including the
determination of the most economical and efficient staffing pattern.
 Rosa Ligaya C. Domingo, et al. vs. Hon. Ronaldo D. Zamora, in his capacity as the
Executive Secretary, et al. explained the President’s power to reorganize the Office
of the President and the Office of the President Proper under Sec. 31 of EO 292
(Admin. Code of 1987).3
o Sec. 31(1), EO 292: The President can reorganize the Office of the
President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by
transferring functions from one unit to another.
o Sec. 31(2)(3), EO 292: The President’s power to reorganize offices outside
the Office of the President Proper but still within the Office of the
President is limited to merely transferring functions or agencies from
the Office of the President to Departments or Agencies, and vice versa.
 ITC: Since there is neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a
mere reorganization under the general 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 President motivated and carried out in good faith.
Ruling: Motion to Admit Petition for En Banc resolution and Petition for an En Banc
Resolution DENIED.
Dicta: As to petitioners’ “Motion for an En Banc Resolution of the Case,” the Court En Banc
is not an appellate tribunal to which appeals from a Division of the Court may be taken. A
Division of the Court is the Supreme Court as fully and veritably as the Court En Banc itself
and a decision of its Division is as authoritative and final as a decision of the Court En Banc.
routine but only on such specified grounds as the Court in its discretion may allow.
3
Sec. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. – The 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. For this purpose, he may take any of the following actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the
immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Staff
Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions
from one unit to another;
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency
as well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and
Agencies; and
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as
well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments and agencies.
PAGE 4
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil Service Commission
G.R. No. 84301—April 7, 1993
J. Campos, Jr.
Topic: Power to Reorganize
Doctrine: Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are
pursued in good faith. If the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional
functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the
one abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be
considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is
true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing
officer or office.
Petitioner: National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration
Respondents: Civil Service Commission and Violeta L. Garcia
Case Summary: Garcia was a Bachelor of Laws graduate and a first-grade civil service
eligible. She was appointed Deputy Register of Deeds VII under permanent status. Such
position was reclassified to Deputy Register of Deeds III pursuant to PD 1529 to which
Garcia was also appointed under permanent status. EO 649 was enacted and took effect on
February 9, 1981. It authorized the restructuring of LRC to NALTDRA. She was appointed
as Deputy Register of Deeds II under temporary status for not being a lawyer. She appealed
her temporary status to SOJ, but it was denied. Her MFR was unacted. She was then
administratively charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. While
the case was pending, her temporary appointment was renewed. However, she was
terminated by SOJ because she allegedly received bribe money. SOJ issued a memo for her
termination, however, CSC issued a directive for her reinstatement to which NALTDRA
appealed, contending that Secs. 8 and 10 of EO 649 abolished all existing positions in the
LRC and transferred their functions to the appropriate new offices created by said EO,
which newly created offices required the issuance of new appointments to qualified office
holders. EO 649 applies to Garcia, and not being a member of the Bar, she cannot be
reinstated to her former position as Deputy Register of Deeds II. The Court said that the
position which Garcia would like to occupy anew was abolished pursuant to EO 649, a
valid reorganization measure. There is no vested property right to be reemployed in a
reorganized office. Not being a member of the Bar, the minimum requirement to qualify
under the reorganization law for permanent appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II,
she cannot be reinstated to her former position without violating the express mandate of the
law.
Facts:
 1977: Garcia, a Bachelor of Laws graduate and a first-grade civil service eligible was
appointed Deputy Register of Deeds VII under permanent status. Such position was
reclassified to Deputy Register of Deeds III pursuant to PD 1529. Garcia was also
appointed under permanent status to the reclassified position up to September 1984.
 For two years, she was designated as Acting Branch Register of Deeds of
Meycauayan, Bulacan.
 By virtue of EO 649 (took effect on February 9, 1981) which authorized the
restructuring of the Land Registration Commission to National Land Titles and
Deeds Registration Administration and regionalizing the Offices of the Registers,
Garcia was issued an appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II on October 1,
1984 under temporary status for not being a member of the Philippine Bar.
 She appealed to the SOJ, but her request was denied. Her MFR remained unacted.
 October 23, 1984: Garcia was administratively charged with Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service.
 1985: While such case was pending decision, her temporary appointment was
renewed.
 October 30, 1986: SOJ notified Garcia of her termination on the ground that she was
receiving bribe money through a Memo.
 February 9, 1987: Such Memo which took effect.
 The Memo was the subject of an appeal to the Inter-Agency Review Committee
which in turn referred the appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
 July 6, 1987: MSPB dropped Garcia’s appeal on the ground that since the
termination of her services was due to the expiration of her temporary appointment,
her separation is in order. MFR was denied on the same ground.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
 June 30, 1988: The CSC, in a Resolution, directed that Garcia be restored to her
position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or its equivalent in the NALTDRA, holding
that under the vested right theory, the new requirement of BAR membership to
qualify for permanent appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II or higher as
mandated under EO 649 would not apply to Garcia but only to the filling up of
vacant lawyer positions on or after February 9, 1981, the EO’s date of effectivity.
Since Garcia had been holding such position from 1977 to September 1984, she
should not be affected by the EO’s operation on February 1, 1981.
 NALTDRA filed a petition to assail the validity of CSC’s Resolution, contending
that Secs. 8 and 10 of EO 649 abolished all existing positions in the LRC and
transferred their functions to the appropriate new offices created by said EO, which
newly created offices required the issuance of new appointments to qualified office
holders. EO 649 applies to Garcia, and not being a member of the Bar, she cannot be
reinstated to her former position as Deputy Register of Deeds II.
Issues + Held:
1. WON membership in the bar should be required of and/or applied only to new
applicants and not to those who were already in the service of the LRC as deputy
register of deeds at the time of the issuance and implementation of the abovesaid
Executive Order.
 EO 649 authorized the reorganization of the LRC into NALTDRA. It abolished all
the positions in the now defunct LRC and required new appointments to be issued to
all employees of the NALTDRA.
 The question of WON a law abolishes an office is one of legislative intent about
which there can be no controversy whatsoever if there is an explicit declaration in the
law itself. A closer examination of EO 649 reveals that it provided for the abolition
of existing positions in express terms4.
o The law mandates that from the moment an implementing order is issued,
all positions in the LRC are deemed non-existent.
o This, however, does not mean removal. Abolition of a position does not
mean removal because removal implies that the post subsists and that one
is merely separated therefrom.
 After abolition, there is in law no occupant. Thus, there can
be no tenure to speak of.
 The question of any impairment of security of tenure does not
arise.
 The abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good
faith suffers from no infirmity. Two questions therefore arise: (1) was the abolition
carried out by a legitimate body?; and (2) was it done in good faith?
 The government has the authority to carry out a valid reorganization in any of its
branch or agency5. However, the power to reorganize is not absolute.
 Dario vs. Mison: Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid
provided they are pursued in good faith. If the newly created office has substantially
new, different or additional functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact
to create an office different from the one abolished, even though it embraces all or
some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office
and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished
and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office.
 In the case at bar, EO 649 was enacted to improve the services and better systematize
the LRC’s operation.
o A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient.
4
Sec. 8. Abolition of Existing Positions in the Land Registration Commission . . .
All structural units in the Land Registration Commission and in the registries of deeds, and all
Positions therein shall cease to exist from the date specified in the implementing order to be
issued by the President pursuant to the preceding paragraph. Their pertinent functions,
applicable appropriations, records, equipment and property shall be transferred to the
appropriate staff or offices therein created.
5
1973 Constitution, Article XVII, Sec. 9. All officials and employees in the existing
Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall continue in office until otherwise provided
by law or decreed by the incumbent President of the Philippines, but all officials whose
appointments are by this Constitution vested in the Prime Minister shall vacate their respective
offices upon the appointment and qualifications of their successors.
PAGE 5
 The requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key positions
in the NALTDRA was imposed to meet the changing
circumstances and new development of the times. Garcia who
formerly held the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II did not
have such qualification. Thus, she cannot hold any key position
in the NALTDRA.
 As for the vested right theory advanced by CSC: (1) there is no such thing as a vested
interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold it; and (2) except
constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.
 The position which Garcia would like to occupy anew was abolished pursuant to EO
649, a valid reorganization measure. There is no vested property right to be
reemployed in a reorganized office. Not being a member of the Bar, the minimum
requirement to qualify under the reorganization law for permanent appointment as
Deputy Register of Deeds II, she cannot be reinstated to her former position without
violating the express mandate of the law.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, We hereby GRANT the petition and SET
ASIDE the questioned Resolution of the Civil Service Commission reinstating private
respondent to her former position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or its equivalent in the
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
Sinon v. Civil Service Commission
G.R. 101251 – 5 November 1992
J. Campos, Jr.
Topic: Power to Reorganize
Doctrine/s: The whole purpose of reorganization is that it is a "process of restructuring the
bureaucracy's organizational and functional set-up, to make it more viable in terms of the
economy, efficiency, effectiveness and make it more responsive to the needs of its public
clientele as authorized by law
Petitioners: Eliseo Sinon
Respondents: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Appeals Board (DARAB), and Juana Banan
Case Summary: Sinon and Banan were competing for the 29 th spot for the position of
MAO of Region II. Sinon initially received an appointment as MAO, as approved by the
regional director based on the list by the placement committee. Banan opposed this,
insisting she, and not Sinon, was qualified for the position, citing the DARAB’s list. CSC
granted Banan’s motion and gave due course to her appointment. The Court upheld the
decision of the CSC in appointing Banan, giving more credence to the list issued by
DARAB which favored Banan.
Facts:
• Before the reorganization of Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF), Banan was the
incumbent Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) in Region II, Cagayan while Sinon was
the Fisheries Extension Specialist (FES) II in the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) of Region II.
• 30 Jan 1987 – EO 116 was issued, reorganizing the MAF into the Department of
Agriculture (DA)
• The EO also called for the evaluation thof employees for the 29 MAO positions in
Cagayan (“first list”; included Sinon (29 ) but excluded resp. Banan)
• Banan filed an appeal with the DARAB for reevaluation of the list
• 23 Aug 1989: DARAB released Resolution No. 97 in which the ranking for 29 MAO
positions was reevaluated by the placement committee (“second list”; Banan replaced Sinon
in the 29th spot)
• The list was approved by DA Sec. Carlo Dominguez
• 30 Aug 1988: Sinon received an appointment as MAO for Region II as approved by the
regional director based on the first list made by the placement committee
• 22 Nov 1989: Sinon filed an appeal with the CSC  Granted for the ff. reasons:
1. DARAB failed to file comment
2. Evaluation of the qualification of employees is a question of fact which the appointing
authority or the placement committee assisting him is in a better position to determine
• 19 Mar 1990: Banan filed motion for reconsideration, comparing her qualifications against
Sinon for the 29th slot in the available MAO positions
• Insisted that to allow the findings of the placement committee to supersede the DARAB
resolution which the DA Sec. approved would be tantamount to giving precedence to the
Placement Committee over the head of the agency
• 8 Feb 1991: CSC granted Banan’s MfR and gave due course to her appointment by the
DARAB
• 21 Mar 1991: Sinon filed MfR of the Feb. 8 resolution  Denied by the CSC:
• There was a conflict between the DARAB and the placement committee’s findings as to
the assessment of Sinon and Banan’s qualifications
• The placement committee’s function is recommendatory in nature
• The Reorganization Appeals Board (RAB) was created by a Circular of the Office of the
President conferred with authority to review appeals and complaints of officials and
employees affected by the reorganization
• Decision of RAB has the imprimatur of the Secretary of the agency and is controlling in
matters of appointment
• RAB decision > placement committee
Issues + Held:
W/N CSC committed GAD in reviewing and re-evaluating the rating/qualification of
Sinon – NO
PAGE 6
o With the reorganization of the MAF to DA, it became imperative to protect the security
of tenure of civil service officers in the implementation of government reorganization
hence Congress passed RA 6656, which created the Placement Committee (PC) to
assist the appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel
 Assist: lend, aid, contribute effort in the accomplishment of the task
 Recommend: Present advice or choice; implies another person has the final say
o PC was charged with the duty of exercising the same discretionary functions as the
appointing authority in the judicious selection and placement of personnel when the
law empowered it to "assist" the appointing authority
o RA 6656 also allows any officer or employee aggrieved by the appointments to file an
appeal with the appointing authority, then to the CSC
 The creation of the RAB was also to address the problem of employees affected
by the reorganizations
o The appointment paper received by Sinon on 30 Aug 1989 for the position of MAO
had not conferred any permanent status and was still subject to the condition that there
is no pending administrative case against the appointee, no pending protest against the
appointment, nor any decision by competent authority that will adversely affect the
approval of the appointment
o For as long as the re-evaluation of the qualifications filed by Banan was pending, the
petitioner cannot claim he had been issued with a "complete" appointment. Neither is
there any point in asserting his appointment had "cured" whatever change was
subsequently recommended by the DARAB
o CSC only affirmed the findings of DARAB – NO GAD
o CSC also did not direct the appointment of Banan (no usurpation of appointing power)
 In affirming appointment of Banan, CSC is only being consistent with the law
 Section 4 of R.A. 6656 mandates officers and employees holding permanent
appointments shall be given preference for appointment to the new positions in
the approved staffing pattern comparable to their former positions. Also, the term
incumbent officer and the privileges generally accorded to them would more
aptly refer to Banan and not to petitioner Sinon whose appointment was never
confirmed completely
 Position of MAO in the old staffing pattern is most comparable to the MAO in
the new staffing pattern
o In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture himself affixed his approval on the DARAB
findings; Sinon knew as the head of agency, the Secretary was the appointing authority
o See doctrine
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against the petitioner
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
Domingo v. DBP
G.R. Number 93355 – Apr 7, 1992
J. Regalado
Topic: The Power to Reorganize
Doctrine: Reorganization is a recognized valid ground for separation of civil service
employees, IF done in good faith—if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy
more efficient.
Petitioners: Luis B. Domingo
Respondents: Dev’t Bank of the Philippines and Civil Service Commission
Case Summary:
Petitioner Domingo was employed by DBP on permanent status. EO No. 81 authorized the
reorganization of DBP. A resolution which allowed the issuance of temporary
appointments to all personnel of the Bank was implemented. Petitioner was issued a
temporary appointment. He was then assessed and got a performance rating of below
average. He filed complaint against the Bank for illegal dismissal. The CSC rendered a
resolution affirming the separation of the petitioner. The SC held that the reorganization
was done in good faith, ergo, valid. And as such, it is a valid ground for separation of civil
service employees. Additionally, a “below average” efficiency rating is sufficient
justification for the termination of a government employee such as herein petitioner. The
petitioner was also given the chance to contest the evaluation proceedings but failed to do
so.
Facts:
 Petitioner Domingo – employed by DBP as Senior Training and Career Devt
Officer on permanent status from Feb 1979 to Dec 1986
 Dec. 3, 1986 – EO No. 81 (The Revised Charter of DBP) was passed authorizing
the reorganization of DBP6
o In pursuant thereto, DBP issued Board Res. No. 304-87 allowing the
issuance of temporary appointments to all DBP personnel in order to
fully implement the reorganization.
 Said resolution authorized the issuance of temporary
appointments to all DBP personnel to allow max. flexibility in
the reorganization. Temporary appointments issued had a max
period of 12 months during which, the performance of the
incumbents were assessed on the basis of the results of their
evaluation.
 DBP assessed all its personnel under the CSC approved New Performance
Appraisal System, a peer and control rating process.
o Jan 2, 1987 – Petitioner was issued a temporary appointment for 1 year,
which was renewed for another period ‘til Nov 30, 1988.
o Nov 23, 1988 – In a memorandum issued by the Final Review
Committee, petitioner got a performance rating of “below average”.
His appointment was “made to lapse”.
 Petitioner and a certain Evangeline Javier filed with the CSC a joint complaint
against DBP for illegal dismissal.
o Alleged that their dismissal was a violation of the Civil Service Law
against the issuance of temporary appointments to permanent employees,
as well as of their right to security of tenure and due process
 Nov 27, 1989 – CSC directed the reappointment of Domingo and Javier as Senior
Training and Career Devt Officer and Research analyst or any such equivalent rank.
6
Sec. 32. Authority to Reorganize. — In view of the new scope of operations of the Bank, a
reorganization of the Bank and a reduction in force are hereby authorized to achieve
simplicity and economy in operations, including adopting a new staffing pattern to suit
the reduced operations envisioned. The formulation of the program of reorganization shall be
completed within six months after the approval of this Charter, and the full implementation of
the reorganization program within thirty months thereafter.
PAGE 7
o Action of DBP to issue a temporary appointment to one who has been on
permanent status before will deprive the employee of benefits accorded
permanent employees and will adversely affect his security of tenure
 DBP filed MfR, arguing that
o The issuance of temporary appointments was purely an interim
arrangement.
o In spite of the temporary appointment, they continued to enjoy benefits,
salaries corresponding to permanent employees.
o No impairment of security of tenure since the new DBP charter expressly
provides that qualified personnel of the bank may be appointed to
appropriate positions in the new staffing pattern
o Petitioner was evaluated under a rating system approved by the CSC
o Petitioner never appealed his rating or the extension of his temporary
appointment although advised to do so by his direct supervisor
 CSC rendered resolution setting aside its previous decision and affirming the
separation of petitioner.
o The non-extension or non-issuance of the petitioner’s and Javier’s
appointments were based on their below ave rating performance
o DBP Revised Charter gives the Bank a wide latitude of discretion in the
reappointment of its personnel subject to existing civil service laws and
rules and regulations
 Hence, this special civil action impugning the said resolution.
Issues + Held:
4. [MAIN] W/N the reorganization implemented by DBP violates petitioner’s
security of tenure – NO.
o Petitioner: Govt reorganization cannot be a valid ground to terminate the
services of govt employees; cites the case of Dario v Mison et al
o Court: Erroneous^. As we said in Dario: A reorganization is carried out
in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make
bureaucracy more efficient. No dismissal or separation actually occurs
because the position itself ceases to exist. In that case security of tenure
would not be a Chinese wall.
 Reorganization is a recognized valid ground for separation of
civil service employees, IF done in good faith.
 All those not so appointed in the implementation of said
reorganization = deemed separated from service with
concomitant recognition of their entitlement to appropriate
separation benefits/retirement plans.
 Sec 16 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution 7; Secs
33 and 34 of EO No. 818 and Sec. 9 of RA No. 66569
7
SECTION 16. Career civil service employees separated from the service not for cause but as
a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 and the
reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall be entitled to appropriate
separation pay and to retirement and other benefits accruing to them under the laws of general
application in force at the time of their separation. In lieu thereof, at the option of the
employees, they may be considered for employment in the Government or in any of its
subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries. This provision also applies to career officers whose
resignation, tendered in line with the existing policy, had been accepted.
8 reappointed as the case may be without loss of seniority and shall be entitled to full pay for the
Sec. 33. Implementing Details; Organization and Staffing of the Bank. Upon the effectivity of
this Charter, the Board of Directors of the Bank shall be constituted and its Chairman
appointed. The Chairman is hereby authorized, subject to the approval of the Board of
Directors as appropriate, to issue such orders, rules and regulations as may be necessary to
implement the provisions of this Charter including those relative to the financial aspects, if any,
and to the reorganization of the Bank as hereinabove authorized which will involve the
determination and adoption of (1) the new internal structure of the Bank as reorganized down
to the divisional section or lowest organizational levels, including such appropriate units as
may be needed to handle caretaking activities such as the disposition of certain assets and the
collection of certain accounts; (2) a new staffing pattern including appropriate salary rates, and
(3) the initial operating budget.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
 The evaluation process adopted by DBP bears out the existence
of good faith in the course of reorganization.
 A bank-wide peer and control rating process was
implemented. Peers and supervisors rated the DBP
employees
 Performance rating system used and adopted was duly
approved by the CSC
 The evaluation used several instruments for
determining proficiency or skills on the job, positive
work attitude
 Petitioner and Javier were subjected to this rating
process as all other employees of the Bank were
o They were recommended for a renewal of
temporary status; even considered to transfer
them to another dept/unit out of compassion
o Yet they were again found wanting having
both acquired below ave rating
 Under Sec. 27 of PD. 807, the govt is authorized to lay off
employees in case of a reduction due to reorganization.
 Petitioner failed to invoke presence of bad faith.
 Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera: To be sure, the
reorganization could affect the tenure of members of the career
service as defined in Section 5, Article IV of Presidential Decree
No. 807, and may even result in the separation from office of
some meritorious employees. But even then, the greater good of
the greatest number and the right of the citizenry to a good
government, and as they themselves have mandated through the
vehicle of Proclamation No. 3, provide the justification for the
said injury to the individual. In terms of values, the interest of an
In the implementation of the reorganization of the Bank, as authorized under the preceding
section, qualified personnel of the Bank may be appointed to appropriate positions in the new
staffing pattern thereof and those not so appointed are deemed separated from the service. No
preferential or priority rights shall be given to or enjoyed by any officer or personnel of the
Bank for appointment to any position in the new staffing pattern nor shall any officer or
personnel be considered as having prior or vested rights with respect to retention in the Bank or
in any position as may have been created in its new staffing pattern, even if he should be the
incumbent of a similar position thereon.
Pending the completion of the personnel actions above provided and the issuance of the
appropriate implementing orders, all present remaining incumbents of position in the Bank
shall continue to exercise their usual functions, duties and responsibilities.
Sec. 34. Separation Benefits. All those who shall retire from the service or are separated
therefrom on account of the reorganization of the Bank under the provisions of this Charter
shall be entitled to all gratuities and benefits provided for under existing laws and/or
supplementary retirement plans adopted by and effective in the Bank: Provided, that any
separation benefits and incentives which may be granted by the Bank subsequent to June 1,
1986, which may be in addition to those provided under existing laws and previous retirement
programs of the Bank prior to the said date, for those personnel referred to in this section shall
be funded by the National Government; Provided, further, that, any supplementary retirement
plan adopted by the Bank after the effectivity of this Chapter shall require the prior approval of
the Minister of Finance.
9
Section 9. All officers and employees who are found by the Civil Service Commission to
have been separated in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be ordered reinstated or
period of separation. Unless also separated for cause, all officers and employees, who have
been separated pursuant to reorganization shall, if entitled thereto, be paid the appropriate
separation pay and retirement and other benefits under existing laws within ninety (90) days
from the date of the effectivity of their separation or from the date of the receipt of the
resolution of their appeals as the case may be: provided, that application for clearance has been
filed and no action thereon has been made by the corresponding department or agency. Those
who are not entitled to said benefits shall be paid a separation gratuity in the amount equivalent
to one (1) month salary for every year of service. Such separation pay and retirement benefits
shall have priority of payment out of the savings of the department or agency concerned.
PAGE 8
employee to security of tenure must yield to the interest of the
entire populace and to an efficient and honest government.
5. W/N “average” and “below ave” efficiency ratings are not valid grounds for
petitioner’s termination – NO.
o State puts a premium on an individual's efficiency, merit and fitness before
one is accepted into the career service. A civil service employee's
efficiency rating, therefore, is a decisive factor for his continued service
with the Government.
o A “below average” efficiency rating is sufficient justification for the
termination of a government employee such as herein petitioner.
o Petitioner's separation must be affirmed if public good is to be subserved.
o In the words of respondent commission in its questioned resolution, it
cannot “sanction the reappointment of said officials and employees who
have fallen short of the performance necessary in order to maintain at all
times efficiency and effectiveness in the Office.”
6. W/N petitioner was afforded a day in court – YES.
o No violation of procedural due process even where no hearing was
conducted for as long as the party was given a chance to present his
evidence and defend himself.
o Records show that petitioner had the opportunity to contest the
results of the evaluation proceedings. BUT he made no appeal to
the Final Review Committee. He cannot, by his own inaction,
legally claim that he was denied due process of law.
Ruling: No GAD committed by CSC hence its challenged resolution is AFFIRMED.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)
Eugenio v. Civil Service Commission
G.R. 115863 - March 31, 1995
J. Puno
Topic: Power to Reorganize
Doctrine: A department’s power to reorganize is strictly limited to offices under its control.
Petitioners: AIDA D. EUGENIO
Respondents: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. &
HON. SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR.
Case Summary: Eugenio, who was recommended to the President for CESO Rank IV, was
obstructed by the CSC’s Resolution to abolish the Career Executive Service Board, since it
prevented the Office of the President from taking action due to the legal issues surrounding
the authority of the CSC to abolish the office. Petitioner filed a petition to annul the
Resolution. The SC sided with her and annulled the CSC Resolution, finding that the CESB,
which was created by law, could only be abolished by the legislature.
Facts:
● Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute.
● She applied for Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility and a CESO rank.
● Aug. 2, 1993 - She was granted a CES eligibility.
● Sept. 15, 1993 - The Career Executive Service Board recommended her for a CESO
rank (Rank IV)to the President.
● Oct. 15, 1993 - CSC passed Resolution No. 93-4359, abolishing the CES Board.
● Jun. 17, 1994 - Petitioner received a letter from Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
Carpio to the legal issues (including authority of CSC to abolish the CESB) presented
with this resolution, the Office of the President refrained from considering
appointments of career service eligibles to career executive ranks. However, she was
advised that she could bring her issue to the appropriate court.
● Eugenio filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC to annul the CSC
Resolution.
Issues + Held:
1. W/N the CSC had authority to abolish the CESB– NO.
o CSC’s argument: Section 17,10Chapter 3, Subtitle A. Title I, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987 gives it the power to abolish the CSC
o However, the court pointed out that this must be read in conjunction with
the previous Section which outlines the offices which are under it. The
exhaustive list of offices clearly excludes the CESB.
o CESB was created as an autonomous entity while being attached to the
CSC. According to the Reorganization Committee, “the CESB shall be
autonomous. It is expected to view the problem of building up executive
manpower in the government with a broad and positive outlook.”, and the
attachment was for purposes of “policy and program coordination”. This is
further supported by Section 38(3), Chapter 7, Book IV of the
Administrative Code11.
o CESB was created by law (Presidential Decree 12(P.D.) No. 1 on September
1, 1974 which adopted the Integrated Plan ), hence it can only be
abolished by the legislature. There has been no such law passed; on the
10
Sec. 17. Organizational Structure. — Each office of the Commission shall be headed by a
Director with at least one Assistant Director, and may have such divisions as are necessary
independent constitutional body, the Commission may effect changes in the organization as the
need arises.
11
(3) Attachment. — (a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the department or its
equivalent and attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program
coordination. The coordination may be accomplished by having the department represented in
the governing board of the attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a member,
with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter; having the attached corporation
or agency comply with a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of
programs and projects; and having the department or its equivalent provide general policies
through its representative in the board, which shall serve as the framework for the internal
policies of the attached corporation or agency.
12
Article IV, Chapter I, Part III: Article IV — Career Executive Service
PAGE 9

contrary, in all the General Appropriations Acts from 1975 to 1993, the
legislature has set aside funds for the operation of CESB.
Ruling: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and Resolution No. 93-4359 of the
respondent Commission is hereby annulled and set aside.

1. A Career Executive Service is created to form a continuing pool of well-selected and

development oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service.
2. A Career Executive Service hereinafter referred to in this Chapter as the Board, is created to
serve as the governing body of the Career Executive Service. The Board shall consist of the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission as presiding officer, the Executive Secretary and
the Commissioner of the Budget as ex-officio members and two other members from the
private sector and/or the academic community who are familiar with the principles and
methods of personnel administration.
Admin (3. Power to Reorganize)