77

Art. VI, Sec. 1

xGovernment of the Philippine Islands v. Springer

1 April 1927 G.R. No. L-26969 MALCOLM, J.
Recit Ready Synopsis

Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case

The Organic Act vests "the supreme executive power" in the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands.
The Governor-General since the approval of the last Organic Act has no prerogative powers.

Organic Act, §21 & §22: The authority of the Governor-General is made secure by the important proviso "that all
executive functions of Government must be directly under the Governor-General or within one of the executive
departments under the supervision and control of the Governor-General.
Administrative Code, §58: The Governor-General, as Chief Executive of the Islands, is charged with the executive
control of the Philippine Government, to be exercised in person or through the Secretaries of Departments, or other
proper agency, according to law.

Article 1 Section 1 of 1987 Constitution:

Separation of Powers
FACTS
This is an original action of quo warranto (challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office) brought in
the name of the Government of the Philippine Islands against three directors of the National Coal Company (NCC) who
were elected to their positions by the legislative members of the committee created by Acts. Nos. 2705 and 2822. The
purpose of the proceeding is to test the validity of the part of section 4 of Act No. 2705, as amended by section 2 of
Act No. 2822, which provides that "The voting power of all such stock (in the National Coal Company) owned by the
Government of the Philippine Islands shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting of the Governor-General,
the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Sometime in the 1900s, the National Coal Company (NCC) was created by the Philippine Congress. The law
created it (Act No. 2822) provides that: “The voting power shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting of
the Governor-General, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.”

In November 1926, the Governor-General (Leonard Wood) issued
the Senate President and House Speaker in the NCC. The
solely lodged in the Governor-General who is the head of the
the head of state but does not manage government affairs). A
President and the House Speaker.
E.O. No. 37 which divested the voting rights of
EO emphasized that the voting right should be
government (President at that time was considered
copy of the said EO was furnished to the Senate

However, in December 1926, NCC held its elections and the Senate President as well as the House Speaker,
notwithstanding EO No. 37 and the objection of the Governor-General, still elected Milton Springer and
four others as Board of Directors of NCC. Thereafter, a quo warranto proceeding in behalf of the government
was filed against Springer et al questioning the validity of their election into the Board of NCC.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether or not EO no. 37 is valid that giving the power to appoint reside solely with the Executive? – YES.
RULING (include how the law was applied)
E.O. No 37 is valid. It is in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court emphasized
that the legislature creates the public office but it has nothing to do with designating the persons to fill the office .
Appointing persons to a public office is essentially executive. The NCC is a government owned and controlled
corporation. It was created by Congress. To extend the power of Congress into allowing it, through the Senate
President and the House Speaker, to appoint members of the NCC is already an invasion of executive powers . The
Supreme Court however notes that indeed there are exceptions to this rule where the legislature may appoint persons
to fill public office. Such exception can be found in the appointment by the legislature of persons to fill offices within
the legislative branch – this exception is allowable because it does not weaken the executive branch.

Sec. 22 of the Organic Act, "That all executive functions of the government must be directly under the Governor-
General or within one of the executive departments under the supervision and control of the Governor-General." At
the very least, the performance of duties appurtenant to membership in the voting committee is an executive function
on the Government, which the Organic Act requires must be subject to the unhampered control of the Government-
General. The administrative domination of a governmentally organized and controlled corporation is clearly not a duty
germane to the law-making power.

Does the power to appoint reside solely with the Executive? – YES.
1. While the Philippine Organic Act does not provide a general distributing clause, it is clearly deducible that
there is a distribution of powers among the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary.
2. It is beyond the power of any branch to exercise its functions in any way other than that provided under the
Organic Law.
3. The Organic Act vests the supreme executive power in the GG.
a. He is given general supervision and control of all departments and bureaus of the government.
b. He is also made responsible for the faithful execution of laws.
c. This was also enunciated in the Admin Code.
4. The Organic Act vests the Philippine Legislature with general legislative power.
a. Legislative power refers to the power to make laws, and to alter and repeal them.
b. However, while the legislature is only allowed to exercise legislative power, and not generally
executive or judicial powers, the legislature may nevertheless exercise auxiliary powers necessary and
appropriate to its independence and to make its express powers effective.
5. And an independent judiciary completes the picture.
6. Because of the separation of powers, the legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the
executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the judiciary has no power to make or execute
the law.
DISPOSITIVE

We have no hesitancy in concluding that so much of section 4 of Act No. 2705, as amended by section 2 of Act No.
2822, as purports to vest the voting power of the government-owned stock in the National Coal Company in the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional and void. It
results, therefore, in the demurrer being overruled, and as it would be impracticable for the defendants to answer,
judgment shall be rendered ousting and excluding them from the offices of directors of the National Coal Company. So
ordered, without costs.
ADDITIONAL NOTES

OTHERS:

Can the Senate President as well as the House Speaker can validly elect the Board Members of NCC? – NO, EO37 is
valid.
1. It is in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers.
a. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislature creates the public office but it has nothing to do
with designating the persons to fill the office.
b. Appointing persons to a public office is essentially executive.
2. The NCC is a government owned and controlled corporation. It was created by Congress.
a. To extend the power of Congress into allowing it, through the Senate President and the House
Speaker, to appoint members of the NCC is already an invasion of executive powers.
3. The Supreme Court however notes that indeed there are exceptions to this rule where the legislature may
appoint persons to fill public office.
a. Thus, the only reference made to appointments by the Legislature relates to the selection of
Secretaries of Departments, of officers and employees for the Legislature, and of Resident
 Commissioners, from which it would naturally be inferred that no other officers and employees may be
chosen by it.
b. The exceptions made in favor of the Legislature strengthen rather than weaken the grant to the
executive.
c. The specific mention of the authority of the Legislature to name certain officers is indicative of a
purpose to limit the legislative authority in the matter of selecting officers.
d. The expression of one thing not expressed. Had it been intended to give to the Philippine Legislature
the power to name individuals to fill the offices which it has created, the grant would have been
included among the legislative powers and not among the executive powers.
e. The administrative control of the Government of the Philippine Islands by the Governor-General to
whom is confided the responsibility of executing the laws excludes the idea of legislative control of
administration.

4. The NCC, though on its face is a private corp., is actually a government agency.
a. The government owns stocks of NCC, in order to insure proper governmental supervision.
b. The government is the owner of the majority of the stock of NCC; thus, the govt naturally dominates
the management of NCC property.
c. Being a stockholder, the government is justified in intervening in the transactions of the corporation,
and in protecting the corp’s property right.
d. The government also divested itself of its sovereign character when it comes to the transactions of the
corporation.
i. NCC was never created to be a private corporation
ii. Public funds were used to create the NCC, used to purchase stock
iii. The voting of the government stock is the prerogative of the stockholder, not the prerogative
of the corporation
e. Among other corporations created by the Legislature, the majority stock of which is owned by the
government, are: NCC; PNB; National Petroleum Company; National Development Company; National
Cement Company; National Iron Company, etc.
i. In each of these instances, the Legislature directed that the majority stock should be
purchased by the government
ii. Likewise, in all these instances, the stock is to be voted by a committee or board of control,
consisting of the GG, Senate Pres and Speaker
iii. The power of the majority stockholders to vote the government stock carries with it the right
to elect all directors, to remove any or all of them, and to dissolve the corporation by
voluntary proceedings.
iv. It must be noted that two of the members of the voting committee are members of the
Legislative
v. Thus, the Legislative somehow encroaches on the Executive’s responsibility in appointing and
electing directors

Is the court doing a violation of the legislative will by allowing the voting power be placed with the GG, until
subsequent legislation is enacted? - NO, no violation.
1. The court may simply disregard the unconstitutional part of the statute, and read the statute as if the
unconstitutional part was never placed at all.
2. But even if the entire provision is void, it is nevertheless the GG’s task, as the Executive, to protect public
interest and public property.
3. He is made responsible for the execution of laws, and if the govt agencies fail to function by inaction on his
part, then he would violate his duty.
4. The best interests of the Philippines would best be served by strict adherence to the basic principles of the
Constitution.

Lawful Life: GPI vs Springer 50 Phil 259