Ang NARS vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No.

215746) October 8, 2019

Facts: RA 9173 or the Philippine Nursing Act was approved on October 21, 2002 and it provides in Sec.
23 for the following:

On July 28, 2008, Congress approved Joint Resolution No. 4 which authorizes the President to “Modify
the Compensation Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base Pay Schedule of Military and
Uniformed Personnel in the Government and for Other Purposes.” Said Joint Resolution provides that all
“laws, decrees, executive orders, corporate charters, rules, regulations, circulars, approvals and other
issuances inconsistent with the provisions of this Joint Resolution such as, but not limited to…Republic
Act No. 9173, are hereby amended.” In implementation of the Joint Resolution, Pres. GMA signed EO No.
811 on June 17, 2009 which categorizes the position of Nurse I from SG 10 to SG 11.

In filing the petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, petitioners alleged that
respondents failed to implement Sec. 32 of the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002, which raised the minimum
salary grade level for nurses to SG 15, despite the issuance of the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
They also questioned the validity of Joint Resolution No. 4 for repealing other laws providing for salary
and compensation to government employees. They further alleged that EO No. 811 violated the principle
of non-diminution of salaries stipulated in Joint Resolution No. 4 and that said EO has repealed Sec. 23 of
RA 9173, which was beyond the authority given to the President under the joint resolution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not a joint resolution of Congress, such as the Joint Resolution No. 4, is law (NO)

The Court held that only a bill can become law, as provided for in Sec. 26, Art. VI of the 1987
Constitution, which requires that to become law, a bill must pass three readings on separate
days, unless the President certifies that its enactment is urgent.

Unlike a bill, a joint resolution cannot become a law, despite its definition in the Senate Rules of
Procedure which provides as follows:

In its Position Paper, the Senate stated that bills and joint resolutions for all practical purposes
are treated alike procedurally. The House of Representatives also stated that a joint resolution
possesses the force of law if it resembles a bill as to form and procedure for adoption.

However, neither the Rules of the Senate nor that of the House of Representatives can amend
the Constitution which recognizes that only a bill can become a law. However, a joint resolution
 can be part of the implementation of a law, as provided in the law itself. A joint resolution can also
be treated as a recommendation to the Executive on how the law can be implemented.

Other provisions of the Constitution also refer only to bills, such as Sec. 24 and 25, Art. VI on
legislative appropriations and Sec. 27(1), Art. VI on the Presidential veto power which applies
expressly only to bills, not joint resolutions. Thus, the Court held that if a joint resolution is given
the effect of and treated as law, Congress will be taking away the President’s veto power since
the Constitution only provides for said power over a bill.

In the US, both Houses of Congress see no difference between a bill and joint resolution but the
Court held that the same cannot be applied in our jurisdiction. Art. 1, Sec. 7 of the US
Constitution provides that aside from a bill, an “Order, Resolution or Vote” shall also be presented
to the President” in order for it to be enacted into law. Unlike the US Constitution, there is no
counterpart provision in our 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitution.

The language of the 1987 Constitution is plain, simple and clear that a bill can be enacted into
law and makes no mention of any other act or measure. Even granting that the 1935, 1973 and
1987 Constitutions borrowed from the US the basic system of governance, there was no adoption
in wholesale or verbatim of the US Constitution.

The Court also discussed the differences between the bill and joint resolution such that the bill to
be approved by Congress must pass the three readings on separate days and distribution
requirements. On the other hand, a joint resolution can be approved in one, two, or three
readings on the same day or on separate days depending on the rules of procedure. Also, a bill
must be presented to the President for his signature or veto whereas a joint resolution does not
require the same.

2. Whether or not Joint Resolution No. 4 has amended Sec. 23 of RA No.9173 (NO)

The Court held that an implementing resolution, like Joint Resolution No.4, not being a separate
law itself, cannot amend prior laws. Such implementing resolution can only implement the Salary
Standardization Law, not repeal its enabling law or prior laws. The Joint Resolution No.4 can
only recommend to the President in accordance with the authority given to the Department of
Budget and Management under RA No. 6758 or the "Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989.

By its language, Joint Reso. No. 4 has expressly repealed all provisions of law and IRRs
prescribing salary grades for government officials and employees, save for exceptions in RA No.
6758. However, this amendment or repeal cannot be effected through a mere joint resolution. As
for EO No. 811, being a presidential issuance, cannot also amend or repeal a prior law.

HOLDING: Petition partly granted. Paragraph 16 of Joint Reso. No. 4 declared void and
unconstitutional. Dismissed as to the part compelling Executive Secretary, Secretary of DBM and
Secretary of DOH to implement Sec. 23 of RA No. 9173 as it will require an appropriation of public
funds through a law.