Tondo Medical v. Court of Appeals

FACTS:Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the CA on Nov 26 2004, denying the nullification of the Health Sector Reform Agenda and EO No. 102 Redirecting the Functions and Operations of the DOH, issued by then Pres. Estrada.

The Petitioners held that:the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) was void due to violation of Secs. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 15 of Art II of the Constitution

such a law as EO No. 102, which effects the reorganization of the DOH, should be enacted by Congress in the exercise of its legislative function. It is void having been issued in excess of the the President's authority. Petitioners assailed EO No. 102 on the ground that they were likely to lose their jobs, that some of them were suffering from the inconvenience of having to travel a longer distance, while others had to relocate to far-flung areas.

Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP) had several errors in its implementation:Some employees suffered diminution of compensation;

others were assigned to positions for which they were neither qualified nor suited;

new employees were hired by the DOH and appointed to positions for which they were not qualified.

Petition in CA denied due to procedural defects.

ISSUES:WON CA committed manifest error in ruling that any question on the wisdom and efficacy of the HSRA is not a justiciable controversy and that the Constitutional provisions protecting the health of the Filipino are not judicially enforceable.

WON CA committed manifest error in ruling that Petitioners' complaint that Executive Order No. 102 is detrimental to the Filipino is likewise not a justiciable controversy and that the President has the authority to issue said order.

WON CA committed manifest error in upholding technicalities over and above issues of transcendental importance raised in the petition.

HELD: Petition is DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED. HSRA and EO No. 102 are valid.

Ratio:With regards to the HSRA:As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress. However, some provisions have already been categorically declared as non self-executing.

Provisions in Art. II of the Constitution are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x x x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bases Conversion and Developmental Authority v. Commission on Audit

FACTS:Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.

March 13, 1992 Congress approved RA 7227, creating BCDA with a Board of Directors exercising powers and functions of BCDA.determination of the organizational structure of and the adoption of a compensation and benefit scheme at least equivalent to that of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Dec. 20, 1996 Board adopted a new compensation and benefit scheme which included P10,000.00 year-end benefit (YEB) to each contractual employee, regular, permanent employee, and Board member.

1999, BSP gave P30,000 YEB to its offiicials and employees and in 2000, increased its YEB to P35,000

Considering that the BCDA should have a YEB that is at least equivalent to that of BSP, Board increased YEB of BCDA from P10,000 to P30,000. Thus, in 2000-2002, BCDA officials and employees received P30,000 YEB.

BCDA's contractual employees, regular, permanent employees, and Board members, full-time consultants received the P30,000 YEB.

Feb. 20, 2003 COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum No. 2003-004, stating that the YEB for Board members was contrary to DBM Circular Letter No. 2002-2. COA disallowed the YEB to the Board and full-time consultants.

COA Court disallowed the YEB granted to the Board and full-time consultants and that the presumption of good faith did not apply to them.

ISSUE:WON the Board and full-time consultants were entitled to the YEB

HELD: Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. COA Audit Decision is AFFIRMED.

RATIO:Board directors are not entitled to YEB as they are not salaried officials of the government. Same goes with full-time consultants wherein no employer-employee relationship exists between them and the BCDA.

The petitioners claim that the granting of the YEB was consistent with Sec. 5 & 18 Art. II of the Constitution, was not held as these provisions were already categorized as non self-executing and are not enforceable rights.