Case No.: G.R. No.

181293
Case Title: Ana Theresia "Risa" Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al. v. Toll Regulatory Board, et al.
Date: February 23, 2015

Topic: Power of the President: The Control Power

Summary of Facts:
The case involves a challenge to agreements related to the toll operations of the Skyway toll facilities.
Petitioners argue that these agreements, including the Amendment to the Supplemental Toll Operation
Agreement (ASTOA) and the Toll Operation Certificate issued to Skyway O & M Corporation (SOMCO), are
unconstitutional, contrary to law, and disadvantageous to the government.

Issues:
1. Constitutionality and legality of toll operation agreements.
2. Validity of the Toll Operation Certificate issued to SOMCO.
3. Approval process of the ASTOA by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)
Secretary.
4. Alleged disadvantageous nature of SOMCO's assumption of toll operations.

Ruling and Decision:

Procedural Issues:
1. Standing: Only labor unions PSCEU and PTMSDWO have standing due to potential impact on their
members.
2. Forum Shopping: PSCEU and PTMSDWO are not guilty of forum shopping.

Substantive Issues:
1. TRB's Power: The TRB has the power to grant authority to operate a toll facility.
2. TOC Validity: The Toll Operation Certificate issued to SOMCO was not irregular.
3. DOTC Secretary's Approval: The approval of the ASTOA by the DOTC Secretary was valid.
4. Disadvantageous Nature: SOMCO's assumption of toll operations is not disadvantageous to the
government.

Doctrine Highlighted:
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency: Acts of cabinet secretaries are presumed acts of the President unless
disapproved.

Relevant Rules, Laws, and Codes:

- Presidential Decree No. 1113: Grants PNCC the right to construct, operate, and maintain toll facilities.
- Presidential Decree No. 1112: Imposes conditions on toll operation franchises.
- Executive Order No. 497: Delegates authority to the DOTC Secretary for contract approval.
- Republic Act 8975: Prohibits lower courts from issuing temporary restraining orders against government
infrastructure projects.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the actions were within the legal framework and
in the public interest. The dismissal of the petition underscored the prohibition on injunctions against
government projects unless a constitutional issue is involved, and it stressed adherence to the hierarchy of
courts.
In the case of Ana Theresia "Risa" Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al. v. Toll Regulatory Board, et al. (G.R. No.
181293), the control power of the President is not explicitly discussed in the provided information. However,
based on general legal principles in the Philippines, the President's control power over executive departments
and agencies is a significant aspect of the executive branch's authority.

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency holds that cabinet secretaries, who head executive departments, are
presumed to act as alter egos of the President. Therefore, their actions are considered as acts of the President
unless disapproved or reprobated. This doctrine emphasizes the unity of the executive branch and the
concentration of executive power in the President.

In the context of the case, if the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary
approved agreements related to toll operations, such as the Amendment to the Supplemental Toll Operation
Agreement (ASTOA), it is presumed to be an act of the President unless there is evidence of disapproval. The
delegation of authority to the DOTC Secretary, as per Executive Order No. 497, further supports the
President's control over executive functions related to transportation and communications.

It's important to note that the specific details about the President's involvement or control power in this case
are not provided in the given information. If there are additional details regarding the President's role or
actions, they would need to be considered for a more comprehensive analysis.

This is a case digest of G.R. No. 181293 entitled Ana Theresia “Risa” Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al. v. Toll
Regulatory Board, et al. promulgated on February 23, 20151.

Short Summary of Facts: The petitioners filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, seeking the annulment of several agreements and issuances related to the Skyway toll
facilities. They argued that the assailed acts were unconstitutional, contrary to law, and grossly
disadvantageous to the government.

Issues: Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing to file the suit, and whether or not the assailed acts
are unconstitutional, contrary to law, and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Ruling and Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the individual
petitioners have not shown any personal or substantial interest in the case indicating that they sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the implementation of the assailed acts. The maintenance of the suit by
petitioners as taxpayers has no merit either because the assailed acts do not involve the disbursement of
public funds. Finally, the bringing of the suit by petitioner-organizations does not automatically confer legal
standing, especially since petitioner-organizations do not even allege that they represent their members, nor
do they cite any particular constitutional provision that has been violated or disregarded by the assailed acts. In
fact, the suit raises only issues of contract law, and none of the petitioners is a party or is privy to the assailed
agreements and issuances.

Doctrine: Legal standing requires a personal and substantial interest in the case indicating that the petitioner
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement. The maintenance of the suit by petitioners
as taxpayers has no merit either because the assailed acts do not involve the disbursement of public funds.
The bringing of the suit by petitioner-organizations does not automatically confer legal standing, especially
since petitioner-organizations do not even allege that they represent their members, nor do they cite any
particular constitutional provision that has been violated or disregarded by the assailed acts. In fact, the suit
raises only issues of contract law, and none of the petitioners is a party or is privy to the assailed agreements
and issuances.

Relevant Laws and Codes:

 ● Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
● Presidential Decree No. 1112
● Presidential Decree No. 1113
● Presidential Decree No. 1894
1
: Source

The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) was created on March 31, 1977, by Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1112 to
supervise and regulate, on behalf of the government, the collection of toll fees and the operation of toll facilities
by the private sector. On the same date, P.D. 1113 was issued granting to the Construction and Development
Corporation of the Philippines (now Philippine National Construction Corporation or PNCC) the right, privilege,
and authority to construct, operate, and maintain toll facilities in the North and South Luzon Toll Expressways
for a period of 30 years starting May 1, 1977. TRB and PNCC later entered into a Toll Operation Agreement,
which prescribed the operating conditions of the right granted to PNCC under P.D. 1113. P.D. 1113 was
amended by P.D. 1894, which granted PNCC the right, privilege, and authority to construct, maintain, and
operate the North Luzon, South Luzon, and Metro Manila Expressways, together with the toll facilities
appurtenant thereto1.

In G.R. No. 181293, the petitioners sought the annulment of several agreements and issuances
related to the Skyway toll facilities. The following agreements were sought to be annulled:

1. The Amendment to the Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement executed on 18 July 2007
between the Republic of the Philippines, the Philippine National Construction Corporation, and
Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation.
2. The Memorandum dated 20 July 2007 of the Secretary of Transportation and
Communications, approving the Amendment to the Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement.
3. The Memorandum of Agreement executed on 21 December 2007 between the Philippine
National Construction Corporation, PNCC Skyway Corporation, and Citra Metro Manila
Tollways Corporation.
4. The Toll Operation Certificate issued by the Toll Regulatory Board on 28 December 2007 in
favor of Skyway O & M Corporation1.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that the individual petitioners have
not shown any personal or substantial interest in the case indicating that they sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the implementation of the assailed acts. The maintenance of the
suit by petitioners as taxpayers has no merit either because the assailed acts do not involve the
disbursement of public funds. Finally, the bringing of the suit by petitioner-organizations does not
automatically confer legal standing, especially since petitioner-organizations do not even allege that
they represent their members, nor do they cite any particular constitutional provision that has been
violated or disregarded by the assailed acts. In fact, the suit raises only issues of contract law, and
none of the petitioners is a party or is privy to the assailed agreements and issuances1.