You are on page 1of 30

EN BANC The instant petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with

prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction,
seeks to prevent respondents from enforcing the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of
HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS G.R. No. 163980 Republic Act No. 9207, otherwise known as the National Government Center (NGC) Housing
ASSOCIATION, INC. and NESTORIO and Land Utilization Act of 2003.
F. APOLINARIO, in his personal
capacity and as President of Holy Petitioner Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) is a homeowners
Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc., Present: association from the West Side of the NGC. It is represented by its president, Nestorio F.
Petitioners, Apolinario, Jr., who is a co-petitioner in his own personal capacity and on behalf of the
PANGANIBAN, C.J., association.
- versus - PUNO,
QUISUMBING, Named respondents are the ex-officio members of the National Government Center
YNARES-SANTIAGO, Administration Committee (Committee). At the filing of the instant petition, the Committee was
SECRETARY MICHAEL DEFENSOR, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, composed of Secretary Michael Defensor, Chairman of the Housing and Urban Development
in his capacity as Chairman of the CARPIO, Coordinating Council (HUDCC), Atty. Edgardo Pamintuan, General Manager of the National
Housing and Urban Development AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Housing Authority (NHA), Mr. Percival Chavez, Chairman of the Presidential Commission for
Coordinating Council (HUDCC), CORONA, Urban Poor (PCUP), Mayor Feliciano Belmonte of Quezon City, Secretary Elisea Gozun of
ATTY. EDGARDO PAMINTUAN, CARPIO MORALES, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and Secretary Florante
in his capacity as General Manager of CALLEJO, SR., Soriquez of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).
the National Housing Authority (NHA), AZCUNA,
MR. PERCIVAL CHAVEZ, in his TINGA, Prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9207, a number of presidential issuances authorized the
capacity as Chairman of the Presidential CHICO-NAZARIO, creation and development of what is now known as the National Government Center (NGC).
Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), GARCIA, and
MAYOR FELICIANO BELMONTE, in VELASCO, JR., JJ. On March 5, 1972, former President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1826,
his capacity as Mayor of Quezon City, reserving a parcel of land in Constitution Hills, Quezon City, covering a little over 440
SECRETARY ELISEA GOZUN, in her hectares as a national government site to be known as the NGC.[1]
capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources On August 11, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 137, excluding
(DENR) and SECRETARY FLORENTE Promulgated: 150 of the 440 hectares of the reserved site from the coverage of Proclamation No. 1826 and
SORIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary authorizing instead the disposition of the excluded portion by direct sale to the bona
of the Department of Public Works and fide residents therein.[2]
Highways (DPWH) as ex-officio members
of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT August 3, 2006 In view of the rapid increase in population density in the portion excluded by Proclamation
CENTER ADMINISTRATION No. 137 from the coverage of Proclamation No. 1826, former President Fidel Ramos issued
COMMITTEE, Proclamation No. 248 on September 7, 1993, authorizing the vertical development of the
Respondents. excluded portion to maximize the number of families who can effectively become
beneficiaries of the governments socialized housing program.[3]
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
On May 14, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. No. 9207. Among
the salient provisions of the law are the following:

DECISION

TINGA, J.:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure the land
tenure of the urban poor. Toward this end, lands located in the NGC, Quezon City shall be The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that petitioner Association cannot question
utilized for housing, socioeconomic, civic, educational, religious and other purposes. the implementation of Section 3.1 (b.2) and Section 3.2 (c.1) since it does not claim any right
over the NGC East Side. Section 3.1 (b.2) provides for the maximum lot area that may be
SEC. 3. Disposition of Certain Portions of the National Government Center Site to Bona Fide awarded to a resident-beneficiary of the NGC East Side, while Section 3.2 (c.1) imposes a lot
Residents. Proclamation No. 1826, Series of 1979, is hereby amended by excluding from the price escalation penalty to a qualified beneficiary who fails to execute a contract to sell within
coverage thereof, 184 hectares on the west side and 238 hectares on the east side of the prescribed period.[6] Also, the OSG contends that since petitioner association is not the
Commonwealth Avenue, and declaring the same open for disposition to bona fide residents duly recognized peoples organization in the NGC and since petitioners not qualify as
therein: Provided, That the determination of the bona fide residents on the west side shall be beneficiaries, they cannot question the manner of disposition of lots in the NGC.[7]
based on the census survey conducted in 1994 and the determination of the bona
fide residents on the east side shall be based on the census survey conducted in 1994 and Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the
occupancy verification survey conducted in 2000: Provided, further, That all existing legal case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
agreements, programs and plans signed, drawn up or implemented and actions taken, governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a
consistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby adopted. party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that
concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
SEC. 4. Disposition of Certain Portions of the National Government Center Site for Local depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[8]
Government or Community Facilities, Socioeconomic, Charitable, Educational and Religious
Purposes. Certain portions of land within the aforesaid area for local government or Petitioner association has the legal standing to institute the instant petition, whether or not it
community facilities, socioeconomic, charitable, educational and religious institutions are is the duly recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the
hereby reserved for disposition for such purposes: Provided, That only individual members of petitioner association are residents of the NGC. As such they are
those institutions already operating and with existing facilities or structures, or those covered and stand to be either benefited or injured by the enforcement of the IRR, particularly
occupying the land may avail of the disposition program established under the provisions this as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries.
Act; Provided, further, That in ascertaining the specific areas that may be disposed of in favor Thus, petitioner association may assail those provisions in the IRR which it believes to be
of these institutions, the existing site allocation shall be used as basis unfavorable to the rights of its members. Contrary to the OSGs allegation that the failure of
therefore: Provided, finally. That in determining the reasonable lot allocation of petitioner association and its members to qualify as beneficiaries effectively bars them from
such institutions without specific lot allocations, the land area that may be allocated to them questioning the provisions of the IRR, such circumstance precisely operates to confer on
shall be based on the area actually used by said institutions at the time of effectivity of this them the legal personality to assail the IRR. Certainly, petitioner and its members have
Act. (Emphasis supplied.) sustained direct injury arising from the enforcement of the IRR in that they have been
disqualified and eliminated from the selection process. While it is true that petitioners claim
rights over the NGC West Side only and thus cannot be affected by the implementation of
In accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207,[4] the Committee formulated the Implementing Section 3.1 (b.2), which refers to the NGC East Side, the rest of the assailed provisions of the
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9207 on June 29, 2004. Petitioners subsequently IRR, namely, Sections 3.1 (a.4), 3.2 (a.1) and 3.2 (c.1), govern the disposition of lots in the
filed the instant petition, raising the following issues: West Side itself or all the lots in the NGC.

WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 3.1 (A.4), 3.1 (B.2), 3.2 (A.1) AND 3.2 (C.1) OF THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9207, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT CENTER (NGC) HOUSING AND LAND UTILIZATION ACT OF 2003
SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW
IT SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT.

WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 3.1 (A.4), 3.1 (B.2), 3.2 (A.1) AND 3.2 (C.1) OF THE RULES We cannot, therefore, agree with the OSG on the issue of locus standi. The petition does not
AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9207, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS NATIONAL merit dismissal on that ground.
GOVERNMENT CENTER (NGC) HOUSING AND LAND UTILIZATION ACT OF 2003
SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID FOR BEING ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND There are, however, other procedural impediments to the granting of the instant petition. The
WHIMSICAL.[5] OSG claims that the instant petition for prohibition is an improper remedy because the writ of
First, the procedural matters. prohibition does not lie against the exercise of a quasi-legislative function.[9] Since in issuing
the questioned IRR of R.A. No. 9207, the Committee was not exercising judicial, quasi- its primary jurisdiction.[19] A perusal, however, of the petition for prohibition shows no
judicial or ministerial function, which is the scope of a petition for prohibition under Section 2, compelling, special or important reasons to warrant the Courts taking cognizance of the
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant prohibition should be dismissed petition in the first instance. Petitioner also failed to state any reason that precludes the lower
outright, the OSG contends. For their part, respondent Mayor of Quezon City[10] and courts from passing upon the validity of the questioned IRR. Moreover, as provided in Section
respondent NHA[11] contend that petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing 5, Article VIII of the
the instant petition with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent
jurisdiction over a petition for prohibition.
Constitution,[20] the Courts power to evaluate the validity of an implementing rule or regulation
The cited breaches are mortal. The petition deserves to be spurned as a consequence. is generally appellate in nature. Thus, following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instant
petition should have been initially filed with the Regional Trial Court.
Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or
administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise
make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of of a quasi-legislative function. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed against any
the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. [12] tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further proceedings when
In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an said proceedings are without or in excess of said entitys or persons jurisdiction, or are
administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to accompanied with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain,
court. This principle, however, applies only where the act of the administrative agency speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [21] Prohibition lies against judicial
concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the
act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power.[13] purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in
order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels. [22] Prohibition is the proper
The assailed IRR was issued pursuant to the quasi-legislative power of the Committee remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior court, or
expressly authorized by R.A. No. 9207. The petition rests mainly on the theory that the when, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the
assailed IRR issued by the Committee is invalid on the ground that it is not germane to the inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where there is no
object and purpose of the statute it seeks to implement. Where what is assailed is the validity adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can be
or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the obtained.[23] Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners remedy is an
performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon ordinary action for its nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the
the same.[14] Regional Trial Court. In any case, petitioners allegation that respondents are performing or
threatening to perform functions without or in excess of their jurisdiction may appropriately be
Since the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the assailed IRR issued enjoined by the trial court through a writ of injunction or a temporary restraining order.
by the Committee in the exercise of its quasi-legislative power, the judicial course to assail its
validity must follow the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court, Court of In a number of petitions,[24] the Court adequately resolved them on other grounds without
Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, adjudicating on the constitutionality issue when there were no compelling reasons to pass
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does upon the same. In like manner, the instant petition may be dismissed based on the foregoing
not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.[15] procedural grounds. Yet, the Court will not shirk from its duty to rule on the merits of this
petition to facilitate the speedy resolution of this case. In proper cases, procedural rules may
True, this Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice. And the power of the Court to
directly with it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so except a particular case from its rules whenever the purposes of justice require it cannot be
warrant.[16] A direct invocation of the Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be questioned.[25]
allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition.[17] Now, we turn to the substantive aspects of the petition. The outcome, however, is just as
dismal for petitioners.
In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[18] the Court said that it will not entertain direct resort to
it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional Petitioners assail the following provisions of the IRR:
and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications,
justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of
on the area actually used or occupied by bona fide residents without limitation to area. The
Section 3. Disposition of Certain portions of the NGC Site to the bonafide residents argument is utterly baseless.

3.1. Period for Qualification of Beneficiaries


The beneficiaries of lot allocations in the NGC may be classified into two groups, namely, the
xxxx urban poor or the bona fide residents within the NGC site and certain government institutions
including the local government. Section 3, R.A. No. 9207 mandates the allocation of
(a.4) Processing and evaluation of qualifications shall be based on the Code of Policies and additional property within the NGC for disposition to its bona fideresidents and the manner by
subject to the condition that a beneficiary is qualified to acquire only one (1) lot with a which this area may be distributed to qualified beneficiaries. Section 4, R.A. No. 9207, on the
minimum of 36 sq. m. and maximum of 54 sq. m. and subject further to the availability of lots. other hand, governs the lot disposition to government institutions. While it is true that Section
4 of R.A. No. 9207 has a proviso mandating that the lot allocation shall be based on the land
xxxx area actually used or occupied at the time of the laws effectivity, this proviso applies only to
institutional beneficiaries consisting of the local government, socioeconomic, charitable,
(b.2) Applications for qualification as beneficiary shall be processed and evaluated based on educational and religious institutions which do not have specific lot allocations, and not to
the Code of Policies including the minimum and maximum lot allocation of 35 sq. m. and 60 the bona fide residents of NGC. There is no proviso which even hints that a bona
sq. m. fide resident of the NGC is likewise entitled to the lot area actually occupied by him.

xxxx Petitioners interpretation is also not supported by the policy of R.A. No. 9207 and the prior
proclamations establishing the NGC. The governments policy to set aside public property
3.2. Execution of the Contract to Sell aims to benefit not only the urban poor but also the local government and various
government institutions devoted to socioeconomic, charitable, educational and
(a) Westside

(a.1) All qualified beneficiaries shall execute Contract to Sell (CTS) within sixty (60) days from
the effectivity of the IRR in order to avail of the lot at P700.00 per sq. m. religious purposes.[26] Thus, although Proclamation No. 137 authorized the sale of lots
to bona fide residents in the NGC, only a third of the entire area of the NGC was declared
xxxx open for disposition subject to the condition that those portions being used or earmarked for
public or quasi-public purposes would be excluded from the housing program for NGC
(c) for both eastside and westside residents. The same policy of rational and optimal land use can be read in Proclamation No.
248 issued by then President Ramos. Although the proclamation recognized the rapid
(c.1) Qualified beneficiaries who failed to execute CTS on the deadline set in item a.1 above increase in the population density in the NGC, it did not allocate additional property within the
in case of westside and in case of eastside six (6) months after approval of the subdivision NGC for urban poor housing but instead authorized the vertical development of the same 150
plan shall be subjected to lot price escalation. hectares identified previously by Proclamation No. 137 since the distribution of individual lots
would not adequately provide for the housing needs of all the bona fide residents in the NGC.
The rate shall be based on the formula to be set by the National Housing Authority factoring
therein the affordability criteria. The new rate shall be approved by the NGC-Administration In addition, as provided in Section 4 of R.A. No. 9207, the institutional beneficiaries shall be
Committee (NGC-AC). allocated the areas actually occupied by them; hence, the portions intended for the
institutional beneficiaries is fixed and cannot be allocated for other non-institutional
beneficiaries. Thus, the areas not intended for institutional beneficiaries would have to be
Petitioners contend that the aforequoted provisions of the IRR are constitutionally infirm as equitably distributed among the bona fide residents of the NGC. In order to accommodate all
they are not germane to and/or are in conflict with the object and purpose of the law sought to qualified residents, a limitation on the area to be awarded to each beneficiary must be fixed
be implemented. as a necessary consequence.

First. According to petitioners, the limitation on the areas to be awarded to qualified Second. Petitioners note that while Sec. 3.2 (a.1) of the IRR fixes the selling rate of a lot
beneficiaries under Sec. 3.1 (a.4) and (b.2) of the IRR is not in harmony with the provisions of at P700.00 per sq. m., R.A. No. 9207 does not provide for the price. They add Sec. 3.2 (c.1)
R.A. No. 9207, which mandates that the lot allocation to qualified beneficiaries shall be based penalizes a beneficiary who fails to execute a contract to sell within six (6) months from the
approval of the subdivision plan by imposing a price escalation, while there is no such penalty In subordinate legislation, as long as the passage of the rule or regulation had the benefit of a
imposed by R.A. No. 9207. Thus, they conclude that the assailed provisions conflict with R.A. hearing, the procedural due process requirement is deemed complied with. That there is
No. 9207 and should be nullified. The argument deserves scant consideration. observance of more than the minimum requirements of due process in the adoption of the
questioned IRR is not a ground to invalidate the same.
Where a rule or regulation has a provision not expressly stated or contained in the statute
being implemented, that provision does not necessarily contradict the statute. A legislative In sum, the petition lacks merit and suffers from procedural deficiencies.
rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation, designed to implement a primary legislation by
providing the details thereof.[27] All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioners.
the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in
conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.[28] SO ORDERED.

In Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207, the Committee is granted the power to administer, formulate DANTE O. TINGA
guidelines and policies, and implement the disposition of the areas covered by the law. Associate Justice
Implicit in this authority and the statutes objective of urban poor housing is the power of the ______________________________________________________________________
Committee to formulate the manner by which the reserved property may be allocated to the
beneficiaries. Under this broad power, the Committee is mandated to fill in the details such as Title : HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs SECRETARY MICHAELDE
the qualifications of beneficiaries, the selling price of the lots, the terms and conditions FENSORCitation : G.R. No. 163980August 3, 2006Ponente : TINGA, J.:
governing the sale and other key particulars necessary to implement the objective of the law.
These details are purposely omitted from the statute and their determination is left to the Facts :
discretion of the Committee because the latter possesses special knowledge and technical A number of presidential issuances prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9207, authorized
expertise over these matters. the creation anddevelopment of what is now known as the National Government
Center (NGC).On March 5, 1972, former President Ferdinand Marcos issued
The Committees authority to fix the selling price of the lots may be likened to the rate-fixing Proclamation No. 1826, reserving a parcelof land in Constitution Hills, Quezon City,
power of administrative agencies. In case of a delegation of rate-fixing power, the only covering a little over 440 hectares as a national government site to beknown as the
standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative NGC.On August 11, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No.
authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held that even in the 137, excluding 150 of the440 hectares of the reserved site from the coverage of
absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. [29] In Proclamation No. 1826 and authorizing instead thedisposition of the excluded portion
this regard, petitioners do not even claim that the selling price of the lots is unreasonable. by direct sale to the bona fide residents therein.

The provision on the price escalation clause as a penalty imposed to a beneficiary who fails In view of the rapid increase in population density in the portion excluded by
to execute a contract to sell within the prescribed period is also within the Committees Proclamation No. 137 fromthe coverage of Proclamation No. 1826, former President
authority to formulate guidelines and policies to implement R.A. No. 9207. The Committee Fidel Ramos issued Proclamation No. 248 on September7, 1993, authorizing
has the power to lay down the terms and conditions governing the disposition of said lots, the vertical development of the excluded portion to maximize the number of families
provided that these are reasonable and just. There is nothing objectionable about prescribing who can effectively become beneficiaries of the government’s socialized housing
a period within which the parties must execute the contract to sell. This condition can program m.On May 14, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law
ordinarily be found in a contract to sell and is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, R.A. No. 9207.
public order, or public policy.
Petitioner Holy SpiritHomeowners Association, Inc. (Association) is a homeowners
Third. Petitioners also suggest that the adoption of the assailed IRR suffers from a procedural association from the West Side of the NGC. It isrepresented by its president, Nestorio
flaw. According to them the IRR was adopted and concurred in by several representatives of F. Apolinario, Jr., who is a co-petitioner in his own personal capacity and onbehalf of
peoples organizations contrary to the express mandate of R.A. No. 9207 that only two the association. The instant petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
representatives from duly recognized peoples organizations must compose the NGCAC Civil Procedure,with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or
which promulgated the assailed IRR. It is worth noting that petitioner association is not a duly writ of preliminary injunction, seeks toprevent respondents from enforcing the
recognized peoples organization. implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9207,otherwise known as
the "National Government Center (NGC) Housing and Land Utilization Act of 2003."
Issue :Whether or not in issuing the questioned IRR of R.A. No. 9207, the Committee Chairman of the Housingand Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC),
was not exercising judicial,quasi-judicial or ministerial function and should be Atty.Edgardo Pamintuan, General Manager of the National HousingAuthority (NHA), Mr.
declared null and void for being arbitrary, capricious andwhimsical. Percival Chavez, Chairman of the PresidentialCommission for Urban Poor (PCUP), Mayor
Feliciano Belmonte ofQuezon City, Secretary Elisea Gozun of the Department ofEnvironment
Held: and Natural Resources (DENR), and Secretary FloranteSoriquez of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH).President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A.No.
Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi- 9207. In accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207, theCommittee formulated the
judicial oradministrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power Implementing Rules and Regulations(IRR) of R.A. No. 9207 on June 29, 2004. Petitioners
is the power to make rules andregulations which results in delegated legislation that is subsequentlyfiled the instant petition questioning its validity.The OSG claims that the instant
within the confines of the granting statute and thedoctrine of non-delegability and petition for prohibition isan improper remedy because the writ of prohibition does not
separability of powers.In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or lieagainst the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Since in issuingthe questioned IRR of
regulation issued by an administrative agency, aparty need not exhaust administrative R.A. No. 9207, the Committee was notexercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function,
remedies before going to court. This principle, however, applies only wherethe act of which is thescope of a petition for prohibition under Section 2, Rule 65 of the1997 Rules of
the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial Civil Procedure, the instant prohibition should bedismissed outright, the OSG contends. For
function, and notwhen the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative their part, respondentMayor of Quezon City and respondent NHA contend that
power.The assailed IRR was issued pursuant to the quasi-legislative power of the petitionersviolated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts in filing the instantpetition with this Court
Committee expresslyauthorized by R.A. No. 9207. and not with the Court of Appeals, which hasconcurrent jurisdiction over a petition for
prohibition.
The petition rests mainly on the theory that the assailed IRR issued by the Issue:
Committeeis invalid on the ground that it is not germane to the object and purpose of Whether or not a petition for prohibition is not the properremedy to assail an IRR issued in the
the statute it seeks to implement.Where what is assailed is the validity or exercise of a quasi-legislativefunction.
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agencyin the Held:
performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to Yes.The court ruled that a petition for prohibition is alsonot the proper remedy to assail an
pass upon the same.Since the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the IRR issued in the exercise of aquasi-legislative function. Prohibition is an extraordinary
validity of the assailed IRR issued by theCommittee in the exercise of its quasi- writdirected against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person,whether exercising
legislative power, the judicial course to assail its validity must follow thedoctrine of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions,ordering said entity or person to desist from
hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional further proceedings
Trial Courts haveconcurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, he said p o eedi gs a e ithout o i e ess of said e tit ’s o pe so ’s
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus andinjunction, such concurrence does not ju isdi tio , o a e a o pa ied ith g a e a use of
give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy andadequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Prohibition liesagainst judicial or ministerial functions, but not against
____________________ legislative orquasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a writ ofprohibition is to
keep a lower court within the limits of
HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. vs. MICHAEL DEFENSOR ET AL its jurisdiction in order to maintain the administration of justice inorderly channels. Prohibition
Gr. No. 163980, August 3, 2006 is the proper remedy to afford reliefagainst usurpation of jurisdiction or power by an inferior
Facts: court, orwhen, in the exercise of jurisdiction in handling matters clearlywithin its cognizance
The instant petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with the inferior court transgresses the boundsprescribed to it by the law, or where there is no
prayer for the issuance of atemporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary adequate remedyavailable in the ordinary course of law by which such relief can beobtained.
injunction,seeks to prevent respondents from enforcing the implementingrules and Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR,
regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9207, otherwiseknown as the "National Government
Center (NGC) Housing and LandUtilization Act of 2003."Petitioner Holy Spirit Homeowners
Association, Inc.(Association) is a homeowners association from the West Side of CASE DIGEST: CHAPTER III
theNGC.Named respondents are the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ELECTION LAW
ex-officio
members of theNational Government Center Administration Committee(Committee). At the meikimouse
filing of the instant petition, the Committee wascomposed of Secretary Michael Defensor, petitio e s’ e ed is a o di a a tio fo its ullifi atio , a
action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional of the petition in the first instance.Petitioner also failed to state any reason that precludes the
T ial Cou t. I a ase, petitio e s’ allegatio that " espo de ts a e lowercourts from passing upon the validity of the questioned IRR.Moreover, as provided in
performing or threatening to perform functions without or in excessof their jurisdiction" may Section 5, Article VIII of theConstitution,
appropriately be enjoined by the trial courtthrough a writ of injunction or a temporary the Cou t’s po e
restraining order.Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers r to evaluate the validity of animplementing rule or regulation is generally appellate in
and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatorypowers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making nature.Thus, following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the instantpetition should have
power is the power to makerules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that been initially filed with the Regional Trial Court.
iswithin the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and
separability of powers.In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule orregulation
issued by an administrative agency, a party need notexhaust administrative remedies before
going to court. Thisprinciple, however, applies only where the act of the administrativeagency
concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicialfunction, and not when the assailed
act pertained to its rule-makingor quasi-legislative power.The assailed IRR was issued
pursuant to the quasi-legislative power of the Committee expressly authorized by R.A.
No.9207. The petition rests mainly on the theory that the assailed IRRissued by the
Committee is invalid on the ground that it is notgermane to the object and purpose of the
statute it seeks toimplement. Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionalityof a rule
or regulation issued by the administrative agency in theperformance of its quasi-legislative
function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.Since the regular courts
have jurisdiction to pass upon thevalidity of the assailed IRR issued by the Committee in the
exerciseof its quasi-legislative power, the judicial course to assail its validitymust follow the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although theSupreme Court, Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts haveconcurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari
,prohibition,
mandamus
,
quo warranto
,
habeas corpus
andinjunction, such concurrence does not give the petitionerunrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.True, this Court has the full discretionary power to takecognizance of the petition
filed directly with it if compelling reasons,or the nature and importance of the issues
raised, so warrant. A
di e t i o atio of the Cou t’s o igi al ju
isdiction to issue thesewrits should be allowed only when there are special and
importantreasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.In
Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,
the Court said that itwill not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desiredcannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional andcompelling circumstances, such as
cases of national interest and ofserious implications, justify the availment of the
extraordinaryremedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction. A perusal, however, of the petition for prohibitionshows no compelling,
special or important reasons to warrant the
Cou t’s taki g og iza e
G.R. No. 190837 March 5, 2014 numerous yearly renewals of their CPR for Refam, which lasted until November 15, 2006,
albeit with the condition that they submit satisfactory BA/BE test results for said drug. 15
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS
(now FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION), Petitioner, Accordingly, respondents engaged the services of the University of the Philippines’ (Manila)
vs. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine to conduct BA/BE testing
DRUGMAKER'S LABORATORIES, INC. and TERRAMEDIC, INC., Respondents. on Refam, the results of which were submitted to the FDA.16 In turn, the FDA sent a letter
dated July 31, 2006 to respondents, stating that Refam is "not bioequivalent with the
DECISION reference drug."17 This notwithstanding, the FDA still revalidated respondents’ CPR for
Refam two (2) more times, effective until November 15, 2008, the second of which came with
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: a warning that no more further revalidations shall be granted until respondents submit
satisfactory BA/BE test results for Refam.18
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch
256 (RTC), through a petition for review on certiorari,1 raising a pure question of law. In Instead of submitting satisfactory BA/BE test results for Refam, respondents filed a petition
particular, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau.of Food and for prohibition and annulment of Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 before the RTC, alleging that
Drugs (BFAD), now Food and Drug Administration (FDA), assails the Order 2dated December it is the DOH, and not the FDA, which was granted the authority to issue and implement rules
18, 2009 of the RTC in Civil Case No. 08-124 which: (a) declared BF AD Circular Nos. 1 and concerning RA 3720. As such, the issuance of the aforesaid circulars and the manner of their
8, series of 1997 (Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997) null and void; (b) ordered the issuance of promulgation contravened the law and the Constitution.19 They further averred that that the
writs of permanent injunction and prohibition against the FDA in implementing the aforesaid non-renewal of the CPR due to failure to submit satisfactory BA/BE test results would not
circulars; and ( c) directed the FDA to issue Certificates of Product Registration (CPR) in only affect Refam, but their other products as well.20
favor of respondents Drugmaker's Laboratories, Inc. and Terrarriedic, Inc. (respondents).
During the pendency of the case, RA 9711, 21 otherwise known as the "Food and Drug
The Facts Administration [FDA] Act of 2009," was enacted into law.

The FDA3 was created pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 3720, 4 otherwise known as the The RTC Ruling
"Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act," primarily in order "to establish safety or efficacy standards
and quality measures for foods, drugs and devices, and cosmetic product[s]." 5 On March 15, In an Order22 dated December 18, 2009, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents, and thereby
1989, the Department of Health (DOH), thru then-Secretary Alfredo R.A. Bengzon, issued declared Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 null and void, ordered the issuance of writs of
Administrative Order No. (AO) 67, s. 1989, entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations on permanent injunction and prohibition against the FDA in implementing the aforesaid circulars,
Registration of Pharmaceutical Products." Among others, it required drug manufacturers to and directed the FDA to issue CPRs in favor of respondents’ products.
register certain drug and medicine products with the FDA before they may release the same
to the market for sale. In this relation, a satisfactory bioavailability6/bioequivalence7 (BA/BE) The RTC held that there is nothing in RA 3720 which granted either the FDA the authority to
test is needed for a manufacturer to secure a CPR for these products. However, the issue and implement the subject circulars, or the Secretary of Health the authority to delegate
implementation of the BA/BE testing requirement was put on hold because there was no local his powers to the FDA. For these reasons, it concluded that the issuance of Circular Nos. 1
facility capable of conducting the same. The issuance of Circular No. 1, s. 1997 8 resumed the and 8, s.
FDA’s implementation of the BA/BE testing requirement with the establishment of BA/BE
testing facilities in the country. Thereafter, the FDA issued Circular No. 8, s. 1997 9 which 1997 constituted an illegal exercise of legislative and administrative powers and, hence, must
provided additional implementation details concerning the BA/BE testing requirement on drug be struck down.23
products.10
Accordingly, the RTC issued a Writ of Permanent Injunction24 dated January 19, 2010,
Respondents manufacture and trade a "multisource pharmaceutical product"11
with the enjoining the FDA and all persons acting for and under it from enforcing Circular Nos. 1 and
generic name of rifampicin12– branded as "Refam 200mg/5mL Suspension" (Refam) – for the 8, s. 1997 and directing them to approve the renewal and revalidation of respondents’
treatment of adults and children suffering from pulmonary and extra-pulmonary products without submitting satisfactory BA/BE test results.
tuberculosis.13 On November 15, 1996, respondents applied for and were issued a CPR for
such drug, valid for five (5) years, or until November 15, 2001. 14 At the time of the CPR’s Aggrieved, the FDA sought direct recourse to the Court through the instant petition with an
issuance, Refam did not undergo BA/BE testing since there was still no facility capable of urgent prayer for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of
conducting BA/BE testing. Sometime in 2001, respondents applied for and were granted preliminary injunction against the implementation of the RTC’s Order dated December 18,
2009 and Writ of Permanent Injunction dated January 19, 2010.25 The Court granted FDA’s prior notice, hearing, and publication in order to be valid and binding, except when the same
application and issued a Temporary Restraining Order 26 dated February 24, 2010, effective is merely an interpretative rule. This is because "[w]hen an administrative rule is merely
immediately and continuing until further orders. interpretative in nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it
gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on
The Issue Before the Court the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that can
facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially
The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the FDA may validly issue and implement increases the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those
Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997. In resolving this issue, there is a need to determine whether or directly affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that new
not the aforesaid circulars partake of administrative rules and regulations and, as such, must issuance is given the force and effect of law."36
comply with the requirements of the law for its issuance.
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that RA 3720, as amended by Executive Order No. 175, s.
The FDA contends that it has the authority to issue Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 as it is the 198737 prohibits, inter alia, the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products without
agency mandated by law to administer and enforce laws, including rules and regulations obtaining the proper CPR from the FDA.38 In this regard, the FDA has been deputized by the
issued by the DOH, that pertain to the registration of pharmaceutical products. 27 same law to accept applications for registration of pharmaceuticals and, after due course,
grant or reject such applications.39 To this end, the said law expressly authorized the
For their part, respondents maintain that under RA 3720, the power to make rules to Secretary of Health, upon the recommendation of the FDA Director, to issue rules and
implement the law is lodged with the Secretary of Health, not with the FDA. 28 They also argue regulations that pertain to the registration of pharmaceutical products. 40
that the assailed circulars are void for lack of prior hearing, consultation, and publication. 29
In accordance with his rule-making power under RA 3720, the Secretary of Health issued AO
The Court’s Ruling 67, s. 1989 in order to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines covering the registration of
pharmaceutical products. AO 67, s. 1989, required, among others, that certain
The petition is meritorious. pharmaceutical products undergo BA/BE testing prior to the issuance of CPR, contrary to
respondents’ assertion that it was Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 that required such tests. 41
Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making powers only if there
exists a law which delegates these powers to them. Accordingly, the rules so promulgated Despite the fact that the BA/BE testing requirement was already in place as early as the date
must be within the confines of the granting statute and must involve no discretion as to what of effectivity of AO 67, s. 1989, its implementation was indefinitely shelved due to lack of
the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of facilities capable of conducting the same. It was only sometime in 1997 when technological
the policy set out in the law itself, so as to conform with the doctrine of separation of powers advances in the country paved the way for the establishment of BA/BE testing facilities, thus
and, as an adjunct, the doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power.30 allowing the rule’s enforcement. Owing to these developments, the FDA (then, the BFAD)
issued Circular No. 1, s. 1997, the full text of which reads:
An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an interpretative rule, or a
contingent rule. Legislative rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and designed to In Annex 1 of A.O. 67 s. 1989 which is entitled Requirement for Registration provides that
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. 31 They usually implement "Bioavailability/Bioequivalence study for certain drugs as determined by BFAD" is required for
existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory obligations pursuant to authority properly [(i)] Tried and Tested Drug, (ii) Established Drug, and (iii) Pharmaceutical Innovation of Tried
delegated by Congress32 and effect a change in existing law or policy which affects individual and Tested or Established Drug.
rights and obligations.33 Meanwhile, interpretative rules are intended to interpret, clarify or
explain existing statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates. Their Drugs requiring strict precaution in prescribing and dispensing contained in the List-B (Prime)
purpose or objective is merely to construe the statute being administered and purport to do were the drugs identified by BFAD in the process of registration that will be required
no more than interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and refer to "Bioavailability/Bioequivalence" studies. However, due to the supervening factor that there
no single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to the same class had yet been no bioavailability testing unit in the country when the A.O. 67 s. 1989 became
which may be covered by the said rules.34 Finally, contingent rules are those issued by an effective, the Bureau did not strictly enforce the said requirement.
administrative authority based on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the
enforcement of the law depends.35 The supervening factor no longer exist [sic] as of date. As a matter of fact, one of the
registered products tested by the Bioavailability Testing Unit at the University of Sto. Tomas
In general, an administrative regulation needs to comply with the requirements laid down by under the NDP Cooperation Project of the Philippines and Australia failed to meet the
Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987," on
standard of bioavailability. This finding brings forth the fact that there may be registered instrumentality tasked on this matter, must nevertheless be vigilant in ensuring that the
products which do not or may no longer meet bioavailability standard. generic drugs and medicines released to the market are safe and effective for use.

Wherefore, all drugs manufacturers, traders, distributor-importers of products contained or WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated December 18, 2009 and the Writ
identified in the list b’ (prime) provided for by BFAD, a copy of which is made part of this of Permanent Injunction dated January 19, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa
circular, are advised that all pending initial and renewal registration of the products City, Branch 256 in Civil Case No. 08-124 are hereby SET ASIDE. BFAD Circular Nos. 1 and
aforementioned, as well as all applications for initial and renewal registration of the same, 8, series of 1997 are declared VALID. Accordingly, the Court's Temporary Restraining Order
shall henceforth be required to submit bioavailability test with satisfactory results on the dated February 24, 2010 is hereby made PERMANENT.
products sought to be registered or renewed conducted by any bioavailability testing units
here or abroad, duly recognized by the BFAD under the Dept. of Health.1âwphi1 (Emphases SO ORDERED.
and underscoring supplied)
________________________________________________________________
The FDA then issued Circular No. 8, s. 1997 to supplement Circular No. 1, s. 1997 in that it REPUBLIC VS DRUGMAKER’S LAB (GR NO. 190837 MARCH 5, 2014)
reiterates the importance of the BA/BE testing requirement originally provided for by AO 67,
s. 1989.1âwphi1 Republic of the Philippines vs Drugmaker’s Laboratories Inc.
GR No. 190837 March 5, 2014
A careful scrutiny of the foregoing issuances would reveal that AO 67, s. 1989 is actually the
rule that originally introduced the BA/BE testing requirement as a component of applications Facts: The FDA was created pursuant to RA 3720, otherwise known as the “Food, Drug and
for the issuance of CPRs covering certain pharmaceutical products. As such, it is considered Cosmetics Act” primarily in order to establish safety or efficacy standards and quality
an administrative regulation – a legislative rule to be exact – issued by the Secretary of measure of foods, drugs and devices and cosmetics products. On March 15, 1989, the
Health in consonance with the express authority granted to him by RA 3720 to implement the Department of Health, thru then Secretary Alfredo RA Bengzon issued AO 67 s. 1989,
statutory mandate that all drugs and devices should first be registered with the FDA prior to entitled Revised Rules and Regulations on Registration of Pharmaceutical products. Among
their manufacture and sale. Considering that neither party contested the validity of its others, it required drug manufacturers to register certain drug and medicine products with
issuance, the Court deems that AO 67, s. 1989 complied with the requirements of prior FDA before they may release the same to the market for sale. In this relation, a satisfactory
hearing, notice, and publication pursuant to the presumption of regularity accorded to the bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) test is needed for a manufacturer to secure a CPR for
government in the exercise of its official duties.42 these products. However, the implementation of the BA/BE testing requirement was put on
hold because there was no local facility capable of conducting the same. The issuance of
On the other hand, Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 cannot be considered as administrative circulars no. 1 s. of 1997 resumed the FDA’s implementation of the BA/BE testing
regulations because they do not: (a) implement a primary legislation by providing the details requirement with the establishment of BA/BE testing facilities in the country. Thereafter, the
thereof; (b) interpret, clarify, or explain existing statutory regulations under which the FDA FDA issued circular no. 8 s. of 1997 which provided additional implementation details
operates; and/or (c) ascertain the existence of certain facts or things upon which the concerning the BA/BE testing requirement on drug products.
enforcement of RA 3720 depends. In fact, the only purpose of these circulars is for the FDA
to administer and supervise the implementation of the provisions of AO 67, s. 1989, including Issue: Whether or not the circular issued by FDA are valid.
those covering the BA/BE testing requirement, consistent with and pursuant to RA
3720.43 Therefore, the FDA has sufficient authority to issue the said circulars and since they Held: Yes. Administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making power only
would not affect the substantive rights of the parties that they seek to govern – as they are if there exist a law which delegates these powers to them. Accordingly, the rules so
not, strictly speaking, administrative regulations in the first place – no prior hearing, promulgated must be within the confines of the granting statutes and must not involve
consultation, and publication are needed for their validity. discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the
execution or enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself, so as to conform with the
In sum, the Court holds that Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 are valid issuances and binding to doctrine of separation of powers and as an adjunct, the doctrine of non-delegability of
all concerned parties, including the respondents in this case. legislative powers.

As a final note, while the proliferation of generic drugs and medicines is indeed a welcome An administrative regulation may be classified as a legislative rule, an interpretative rule or a
development as it effectively ensures access to affordable quality drugs and medicines for all contingent rule. Legislative rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation a d designed to
through their lower prices, the State, through the FDA, which is the government implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. They usually implement
existing law, imposing general, extra-statutory obligations pursuant to authority properly
delegated by the congress amd effect a change in existing law or policy which affect
individual rights and obligations. Meanwhile, interpretative rules are intended to interpret,
clarify or explain existing statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates.
Their purpose or objective is merely to construe the statue being administered and purpory to
do no more than interpret the statute. Simply, they try to say what the statute means and
refer to no single person or party in particular but concern all those belonging to the same
class which may be covered by the said rules. Finally, contingent rules are those issued by
an administrative authority based on the existence of certain facts or things upon which the
enforcement of the law depends.

In general, an administrative regulation needs to comply with the requirements laid down by
EO 292 s. of 1988 otherwise known as the administrative code of 1987 on prior notice,
hearing and publication in order to be valid and binding except when the same is merely an
interpretative rule. This is because when an administrative rule is merely intepretative in
nature its applicability needs nothing further than its bare issuance, for it gives no real
consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. When, on the other hand,
the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that ca facilitate or
render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases the
burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly affected
a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed before that new issuance is given
the force and effect of law.

A careful scrutiny of the foregoing issuances would reveal that A0 67 is actually the rule that
originally introduced the BA/BE testing requirement as a component of applications for the
issuamce of CPR covering certain pharmaceutical products as such, it is considered an
administrative regulation – a legislative rule to be exact – issued by the Secretary of Health in
consonance with the express authority granted to him by RA 3720 to implement the statutory
mandate that all drugs and devices should first be registered with the FDA prior to their
manufacture and sale. Considering that neither party contested the validity of its issuance,
the court deems that AO 67 complied with the requirements of prior hearing, notice and
publication pursuant to the presumption of regularity accorded tl the govt in the exercise of its
official duties.

On the other hand, circulars no. 1 and 8 s. of 1997 cannot be considered as administrative
regulations because they do not: a.) implement a primary legislation by providing the details
thereof; b.) Interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory regulation under which FDA operates
and/or; c.) Ascertain the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of
RA 3720 depends. In fact, the only purpose of these is for FDA to administer and supervise
the implementation of the provisions of AO 67 s. of 1989 including those covering the BA/BE
testing requirement consistent with and pursuant to RA 3720. Therefore, the FDA has
sufficient authority to issue the said circulars and since theu would not affect the substantive
rights of the parties that they seek to govern – as they are not, strictly speaking,
administrative regulations in the first place – no prior hearing, consultation and publication are
needed for their validity.
authority, accountability, and responsibility for achieving higher learning outcomes. While the
governance of basic education would begin at the national level, the field offices (regions,
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT G.R. No. 157286 divisions, schools, and learning centers) would translate the policy into programs, projects,
SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION and services to fit local needs.[2] The national level was likewise to be tasked to define the
- versus - roles and responsibilities of, and provide resources to the field offices which would implement
educational programs, projects, and services in communities they serve. [3] At the forefront
would be the DepEd Secretary, vested with the overall authority and supervision over the
HON. EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS, operations of the department on the national, regional, division, and schools district level. [4]
Department Secretary, THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and Republic Act No. 9155, otherwise known as the Governance of Basic Education Act 2001,
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET Promulgated: became a law on August 11, 2001, in accordance with Section 27(1), Article VI of the
AND MANAGEMENT, Constitution. Under the law, each regional office shall have a director, an assistant director,
Respondents. June 16, 2006 and an office staff for program promotion and support, planning, administrative and fiscal
services.[5] The regional director was given the authority to hire, place and evaluate all
x--------------------------------------------------x employees in the regional office except for the position of assistant director, [6]as well as the
authority, accountability, and responsibility to determine the organization component of the
DECISION divisions and districts, and approve the staffing pattern of all employees therein; [7] evaluate all
division superintendents and assistant division superintendents in the region; [8] and other
functions as may be assigned by the proper authorities.[9]
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
A division, on the other hand, is headed by a schools division superintendent with the
following responsibilities, among others: to supervise the operations of all public and private
This is a Petition for Prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary elementary, secondary, and integrated schools, and learning centers; [10] to hire, place and
injunction filed by the Public Schools District Supervisor Association (PSDSA) seeking to evaluate all division supervisors and schools district supervisors as well as all employees in
declare as unconstitutional Rule IV, Section 4.3; Rule V, Sections 5.1 and the second the divisions, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including school heads, except for
paragraph of Section 5.2; and Rule VI, Section 6.2, paragraph 11 of Department of Education the assistant division superintendent;[11] and perform other functions as may be assigned by
Order No. 1, Series of 2003. The petition likewise seeks to compel, by way of a writ of proper authorities.[12]
mandamus, the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) and the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) to upgrade the salary grade level of the district supervisors The office of the schools district supervisor has been retained under the law. Each district is
from Salary Grade (SG) 19 to SG 24. headed by a school district supervisor and an office staff for program promotion. However,
the responsibilities of the schools district supervisor are limited to the following: (1) providing
professional and instructional advice and support to the school heads and
The Antecedents teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof; (2)
curricula supervision; and (3) performing such other functions as may be assigned by proper
Ever since the Department of Education (DepEd)[1] was founded decades ago, its authorities. The schools district supervisors have no administrative, management, control or
management had been so centralized in the Manila office. Schools in the national, regional, supervisory functions over the schools and learning centers within their respective districts. [13]
and division levels merely followed and implemented the orders and memoranda issued by
the Education Secretary. Due to the evolution of the learning process and the onset of On the school level, an Elementary School Principal (ESP) was designated as school head
information technology, there was a need for a radical change in the governance of the for all public elementary schools; and a Secondary School Principal (SSP) for high schools or
DepEd. Thus, a study on how to improve the management of the Department was conducted, a cluster thereof.[14] The ESP and the SSP serve as both instructional leaders and
and one of the proposals was the abolition of the office of the district supervisor. administrative managers with the following authority, accountability and responsibility:

Then Senator Tessie Aquino-Oreta, the Chairman of the Committee on Education, authored (7) Administering and managing all personnel, physical, and fiscal resources of the school;
Senate Bill No. 2191, the thrust of which was to change the existing management style and
focus on the schools where the teaching-learning process occurs. The bill was intended to (8) Recommending the staffing complement of the school based on its needs;
highlight shared governance in the different levels in the DECS hierarchy and establish
(9) Encouraging staff development; The PSDSA thus requested the DepEd Secretary to call an immediate consultation with the
district supervisors nationwide through a convention, and their valid inputs be considered in
xxxx formulating the rules and regulations to be urged by the DepEd. However, the Secretary
failed to reply. Thus, the IBP reiterated the concerns raised by the PSDSA in a Letter [18] to the
(11) Accepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants for the purpose of upgrading DepEd dated April 15, 2002.
teachers/learning facilitators competencies, improving and expanding school facilities, and
providing instructional materials and equipment. Such donations or grants must be reported
to the appropriate district supervisors and division superintendents; and On January 6, 2003, DepEd Secretary Edilberto C. De Jesus issued DECS Office Order No.
1, which constitutes the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
(12) Performing such other functions as may be assigned by proper authorities.[15] 9155. Sections 4.1 to 4.3, Rule IV of the IRR provide:

Under Section 14 of the law, the DepEd Secretary is mandated to promulgate the SECTION 4.1. The Schools Division Superintendent. A division shall consist of a province
implementing rules and regulations within ninety (90) days after the approval of the Act, or city which shall have a schools division superintendent. There shall be at least one
provided that the principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented within two (2) assistant schools division superintendent and office staff for programs promotion, planning,
years after such approval. administrative, fiscal, legal, ancillary, and other support services.

Before the DepEd could issue the appropriate implementing rules and regulations, petitioner SECTION 4.2. Authority, Accountability, and Responsibility of the Schools Division
sought the legal assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) National Committee Superintendent. Consistent with the national educational policies, plans, and standards, the
on Legal Aid to make representations for the resolution of the following administrative issues: schools division superintendents shall have authority, accountability, and responsibility for the
following:
1. Restoration of the functions, duties, responsibilities, benefits, prerogatives, and position
level of Public Schools District Supervisors. 1) Developing and implementing division education development plans;
2) Planning and managing the effective and efficient performance of all personnel, physical,
2. Upgrading of Salary Grade level of Public Schools District Supervisors from Salary Grade and fiscal resources of the division, including professional staff development;
Level 19 to Salary Grade Level 24 under DBM Circular No. 36, otherwise known as the 3) Hiring, placing, and evaluating all division supervisors and schools district supervisors as
Compensation and Position Classification Rules and Regulation.[16] well as all employees in the division, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including
school heads, except for the assistant division superintendents;
In a Letter dated March 1, 2002 addressed to then DepEd Secretary Raul Roco, the IBP 4) Monitoring the utilization of funds provided by the national government and the local
stated that, per its review of the documents submitted by the PSDSA, it found the latters government units to the schools and learning centers;
position valid and legal, to wit: 5) Ensuring compliance of quality standards for basic education programs and for this
purpose strengthening the role of division supervisors as subject area specialists;
First: The basis for the abolition of the position of District Supervisors under the Attrition Law 6) Promoting awareness of, and adherence by, all schools and learning centers to
and DECS Department Order No. 110, Series of 1991 is no longer valid and rendered moot accreditation standards prescribed by the Secretary of Education;
and academic due to issuance of DECS Department Order No. 22, Series of 1996 and the 7) Supervising the operations of all public and private elementary, secondary, and integrated
passage by Congress of the Philippines of Republic Act No. 9155, otherwise known as the schools, and learning centers; and
Basic Education Governance Act of 2000. Under R.A. 9155, school districts are mandated to 8) Performing such other functions as may be assigned by the Secretary and/or Regional
be maintained and responsibilities of Public Schools Districts Supervisors have been clearly Director.
defined.
SECTION 4.3. Appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Schools Division
Second: There is a clear case of discrimination of grant of salaries and benefits to District Superintendent. The schools district superintendent shall appoint the division supervisors
Supervisors compared to salaries and benefits received by the School Principals which and school district supervisors as well as all employees in the division, both teaching and
position is lower in the hierarchy of positions as prepared by the Department of Education non-teaching personnel, including school heads, except for the assistant schools division
and the Department of Budget and Management. School Principals and District Supervisors superintendent, subject to the civil service laws, rules and regulations, and the policies and
enjoy the same level of Salary Grade even if the latter position is considered as a promotion guidelines to be issued by the Secretary of Education for the purpose.
and enjoys a higher level of position than that of the position of School Principals.[17]
The schools division superintendent shall have disciplinary authority only over the non- ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION TO THAT OF PERFORMING STAFF FUNCTION FOR THE
teaching personnel under his jurisdiction. DIVISION OFFICE PER SECTION 5.1 RULE V OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT 9155 (DEPED ORDER NO. 1, SERIES OF 2003) IS A
Such exercise of disciplinary authority by the schools division superintendent over the non- GROSS VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 9155 THE GOVERNANCE OF BASIC
teaching personnel shall be subject to the civil service laws, rules and regulations, and EDUCATION ACT OF 2001.
procedures and guidelines to be issued by the Secretary of Education relative to this matter.
II. THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 9155 AS
The Regional Director shall continue exercising disciplinary authority over the teaching PROMULGATED UNDER DEPED ORDER NO. 1, SERIES OF 2003 EXPANDED THE LAW
personnel insofar as the latter are covered by specific and exclusive disciplinary provisions AND INCLUDED PROVISIONS WHICH ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE
under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (R.A. No. 4670).[19] LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE SUBJECT LAW.

Sections 5.1 and 5.2, Rule V of the IRR, in turn, provide: III. THE DOWNGRADING OF SALARY GRADE LEVEL OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OR THE NEGLECT OR REFUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
SECTION 5.1. The Schools District Supervisor. A school district shall have a school district EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT TO UPGRADE
supervisor and office staff for program promotion. THE SALARY GRADE LEVEL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT TO A RESPECTABLE
LEVEL OF SALARY GRADE HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE PRINCIPALS DESPITE CLEAR
The schools district supervisor shall primarily perform staff functions and shall not exercise INTENTION OF R.A. 9155 TO RETAIN THE POSITION OF PSDS IN THE HIERARCHY OF
administrative supervision over school principals, unless specifically authorized by the proper ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGERS AND OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
authorities. The main focus of his/her functions shall be instructional and curricula supervision IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.[21]
aimed at raising academic standards at the school level.
Petitioners maintain that the questioned provisions of the IRR are invalid because they
The schools district supervisor shall be specifically responsible for: extended or expanded and modified the provisions of R.A. No. 9155. They argue that the
said law should be read in harmony with other existing educational laws which it did not
1) Providing professional and instructional advice and support to the school heads and specifically repeal, such as Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, otherwise known as The Education
teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof; Act of 1982, as amended by R.A. No. 7798; R.A. No. 4670, otherwise known as the Magna
2) Curricula supervision; and Charta for Public School Teachers; and R.A. No. 7784 captioned An Act to Strengthen
3) Performing such other functions as may be assigned by the Secretary, Regional Directors, Teacher Education in the Philippines by Establishing Centers of Excellence, Creating a
and Schools Division Superintendents where they belong. Teacher Education Council for the Purpose, Appropriating Funds Therefore, and for Other
Purposes.
The schools district supervisor being mentioned in this section shall refer to a public schools Petitioners assert that under Section 7(D) of R.A. No. 9155, the district offices of the DepEd
district supervisor. are intended as field offices where the district supervisors can assist the ESPs and
teachers/learning facilitators within their district as experienced educational managers. Thus,
SECTION 5.2. The School District. A school district already existing at the time of the the district supervisors were not divested of the inherent administrative functions to manage
passage of this Act shall be maintained. However, an additional school district may be and oversee the schools within their respective districts, including their subordinates. They
established by the regional director based on criteria set by the Secretary and on the emphasize that the law provides an office staff for program promotion in the school districts,
recommendation of the schools division superintendent. For this purpose, the Secretary of which would be of no use if the office has no administrative supervision over schools within
Education shall set standards and formulate criteria as basis of the Regional Directors of the its respective districts.
establishment of an additional school district.[20]
Petitioners assert that under the IRR, the schools district supervisors primarily perform staff
On March 13, 2003, the PSDSA, the national organization of about 1,800 public school functions and shall not exercise administrative supervision over school principals, unless
district supervisors of the DepEd, in behalf of its officers and members, filed the instant specifically authorized by the proper authorities. Thus, under the IRR, the exercise of
petition for prohibition and mandamus, alleging that: administrative supervision over school principals was made discretionary and subject to the
whims and caprices of the proper authorities. The logical inference of this provision,
I. THE ACT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN REMOVING PETITIONERS petitioners aver, is that the administrative supervisory powers can be withdrawn from a
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND ITS PRINCIPALS district supervisor without any reason at all, a provision which has no basis in the enabling
(SCHOOL HEADS) WITHIN HIS/HER DISTRICT AND CONVERTING HIS/HER law.
employees in the division, both teaching and non-teaching positions. However, when it
Petitioners further contend that the DepEd has no authority to incorporate its plan of comes to disciplining officers and teaching personnel who commit infractions or violations of
downgrading the position of district supervisor, that is, from being an administrator of a law, rules, and regulations of the DepEd, the exercise of such disciplining authority is lodged
particular district office to a position performing a staff function, to exercise administrative in the hands of the regional director. Petitioners point out that the power to hire teachers is in
supervision over the school principals only when specifically authorized by proper the hands of the division superintendent; principles of administrative rules and procedure
authorities. Petitioners insist that respondent Education Secretary was focused on removing provide that the authority to hire and appoint carries with it the authority to discipline and fire
the level of management in the district office, such that the IRR empower school heads the hired and appointed personnel particularly if the law is silent thereon. Since the division
(principals) to have administrative and instructional supervision of school or cluster of superintendent has the authority to hire teaching personnel within its division, he/she should
schools, while supervision of all public and private elementary, secondary, and integrated also take the responsibility of disciplining erring teachers and employees. If the set-up of
schools and learning centers was given to the division office. placing the power of hiring and power to discipline or fire an errant personnel is separated or
Petitioners further insist that respondent Education Secretary failed to consider the fact that divided between two offices of the DepEd, the proliferation of palakasan or bata-bata system
R.A. No. 9155 strengthened the district office as a mid-level administrative field office of the will flourish, to the detriment of the public education system and public service.
DepEd. The law even mandates to allow the district supervisor to have an office staff for
program promotion in the district office. Apart from the current administrative functions Petitioners also point out that under Section 7(E)(11) of R.A. No. 9155, school heads are
inherent in the district office, DECS Service Manual 2000 vested additional specific functions authorized to accept gifts, donations, bequests, and grants for the purpose of upgrading
to the district offices, to provide professional and instructional advice and support to the teachers/learning facilitators competencies, improving and expanding school facilities and
school heads and teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district, as well providing instructional materials and equipment, which, in turn, shall be reported to the
as curricula supervision. appropriate district supervisors and division superintendents. However, under Section
6.2(11), Rule VI of the IRR, on the authority, accountability, and responsibility of school
Petitioners posit that R.A. No. 9155 did not, in anyway, allow or authorize the reorganization heads, district supervisors were deleted as one of the administrative officers to whom such
of the entire DepEd; it never reduced the position, rank, classification, and salary grade level reporting is to be made. Petitioners conclude that to the extent that the division
of district supervisors, nor abolished the district offices which are responsible for the superintendents are not mandated to report donations and grants to district supervisors, the
administration and management of elementary schools within its jurisdiction. It did not IRR is void.
remove from the district supervisors the function of administrative supervision over schools
within their respective areas. In fact, petitioners insist, what the law did was to give the district On their plea for mandamus, petitioners pray that the Court compel the DepEd and the DBM
supervisor additional responsibility of providing professional and instructional advice and to upgrade their present salary grade. They claim that the position of an ESP is already
support to the school heads and teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the classified as SG 21, which is higher by two grades than that of district supervisors, SG
district or cluster thereof. 19. Considering their higher position in the departments pecking order, vis--vis that of the
ESPs, petitioners opine that to rectify the present grade-level distortion, their salary grade
Petitioners point out that under Section 4.3, paragraph (b), Rule IV of the IRR, the schools should be upgraded to SG 24.[22]
division superintendent was given the power to appoint the division supervisors and schools
district supervisor and other employees subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations, For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) avers that a perusal of Section 7(D) of
and the policies and guidelines to be issued by the Secretary of Education for the R.A. No. 9155 shows that the district supervisor has limited responsibilities, and that the
purpose. On the other hand, the school division superintendent shall have disciplinary power to exercise administrative supervision over the ESPs is not covered by any of those
authority only over the non-teaching personnel under his jurisdiction. Such exercise of responsibilities. The Education Secretary is the disciplining authority in the DepEd, with the
disciplinary authority by the schools division superintendent over the non-teaching personnel regional directors acting as the disciplining authority in their respective regions.
shall be subject to civil service laws, rules, and regulations, and procedures and guidelines to
be issued by the Secretary of Education relative to this matter. The regional director shall As to petitioners gripe that the IRR deleted district supervisors from among those school
continue exercising disciplinary authority over the teaching personnel in so far as the latter heads who should report when [a]ccepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants for the
are covered by specific and exclusive disciplinary provisions under the Magna Carta for purpose of upgrading teachers/learning facilitators competencies, improving and expanding
Public School Teachers (R.A. 4670). school facilities, and providing instructional materials and equipment, the OSG avers that this
reportorial function is directory and merely for convenience.
Petitioners posit that this grant of disciplining authority to the regional director for teaching
personnel who commit violations of laws, rules, and regulations is definitely not provided for Anent petitioners grievance on their alleged stagnant salary grade level, the OSG points out
in R.A. No. 9155. The division superintendent was given the power not only to hire and that the same is already provided for under FY 2003 GAA, [thus], petitioners complaint
appoint the division supervisors, district supervisors, school heads, or principals as well as against the non-increase of their
SG level is already moot and academic. The OSG also emphasizes that the upgrading of
the ESPs salary grade over the petitioners is not violative of petitioners right to equal (1) Providing professional and instructional advice and support to the school heads and
protection of the law, since district supervisors and ESPs are not similarly situated. teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof;

In reply, petitioners contend that the upgrading of the salary grade level of district supervisors
to SG 21 is an admission by the DepEd and by the DBM of the validity of their demand to (2) Curricula supervision; and
increase their salary grade to a respectable SG 24.
(3) Performing such other functions as may be assigned by proper authorities.
The petition is partially granted.
As gleaned from the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2191, the district supervisors
It must be stressed that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the were divested of any administrative supervision over elementary and public high schools. The
implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative Senate resolved to vest the same in the division superintendents, and the Lower House
enactment.[23] The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or concurred. Senator Rene Cayetano proposed that the traditional function of the school
expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the supervisors of exercising administrative supervision over the elementary and public high
legislature.[24] It bears stressing, however, that administrative bodies are allowed under their schools be maintained. However, Senator Tessie Aquino-Oreta, the Chairperson of the
power of subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by Senate Committee on Education and the Sponsor of the Bill, objected to such proposal:
filling in the details. All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and
purposes of the law; that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the standards The President:
prescribed by law.[25] Moreover, as a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the Why do we not say AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED?
decisions and/or actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of
separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in the Senator Cayetano:
enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction. [26] The rationale for this Yes, better yet, Mr. President. I thank the Chair for that amendment.
rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing
society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and The President:
satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of experience and growth of All right. Can we approve that? The sponsor accepts the amendment, I assume.
specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular
statute.[27] Senator Aquino-Oreta:
Yes, Mr. President.
We have reviewed the IRR and find that Section 4.3 of Rule IV, and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of
Rule V are valid. The provisions merely reiterate and implement the related provisions of R.A. The President:
No. 9155. Under the law, a division superintendent has the authority and responsibility to Is there any objection from the floor? (Silence) There being none, the amendment is
hire, place, and evaluate all division supervisors and district supervisors as well as all approved.
employees in the division, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including school
heads.[28] A school head is a person responsible for the administrative and instructional Senator Cayetano:
supervision of the schools or cluster of schools.[29] The division superintendent, on the other Thank you, Mr. President.
hand, supervises the operation of all public and private elementary, secondary, and
integrated schools and learning centers.[30] In line 17, it ends with the conjunction and. I would like to propose an amendment by
inserting a new paragraph (b). This is, of course, the duties and responsibilities of schools
Administrative supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see district supervisors. It is to SUPERVISE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THE DISTRICT, because
that their subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them, right now, this is exactly their job.
the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties.[31] Again, the reality is, there are efforts to minimize, if not remove, the principal function of
school supervisors, which is to supervise school principals in the district. I just want it to be
A plain reading of the law will show that the schools district supervisors have no there to ensure that their primary functions remain as such.
administrative supervision over the school heads; their responsibility is limited to those
enumerated in Section 7(D) of R.A. No. 9155, to wit: Therefore, what appears as paragraph (b) in line 18 will now be subparagraph (c).
The President: But precisely, Mr. President, we are not doing that, we are not taking them out. What we are
What does the sponsor say? saying is for the school supervisor to focus on the curriculum because in the administration of
the affairs of the school, we are saying that the principal knows best how to administer or how
Senator Aquino-Oreta: to run the school better. And so, we are saying here that school supervisors will be there
Mr. President, may I just explain. There are two school supervisors. One is for the academic contrary to the view of that ADB study. We will maintain them, but the focus of the school
function and the other is for the administrative function. As such, if these two supervisors will supervisors will be on the curriculum of the schools.
dictate to the principals, then our thrust in reducing the level of bureaucracy might not be
met. Also, the thrust of this governance bill really is to flesh out the importance of the school Senator Cayetano:
as the heart of education here. In that heart, we have the teacher, the student, and the school Mr. President, again I thank the lady senator. But again let us look at who supervisors of
head. schools are. Supervisors of schools once upon a time were all school principals. They rose
from the ranks, that is why they are fully aware of the administrative as well as the
What we are trying to do here is to bring to the forefront the school itself. In fact, right now, instructional capability of the principals now who are under them. To remove their right to
there is a move in the DECS to do away with the school supervisor in charge of supervise, now it is the ADB, I am correct, the lady senator is correct because as I said I was
administrative and leave that function to the principal. If the principal, the school head will be not sure to remove this traditional function would really render the supervisors practically
dictated upon by these two school supervisors, we might not be able to achieve what we without anything to do. That is why they are now being justified that henceforth there will be
want to do here putting to the forefront the school itself. Meaning, putting to the forefront the no principals that will be promoted as school supervisors because when the school
school head, the teacher, and the student. supervisors reach the age of retirement and retire, no principals shall be promoted to that
level. But these school supervisors now, Mr. President, were once upon a time in their
Senator Cayetano: professional lives principals, and they know best how the schools should be run
Mr. President, I would like to thank the sponsor for that enlightenment. That is precisely my administratively and instructionally. That is the reason for that, Mr. President.
point.
The President:
Not too long ago, I was a speaker before the school supervisors all over the land. One of the What does the sponsor say?
points that they complained about was, in most cases, their job to supervise school principals
is now being removed or have been removed simply because and I may be inaccurate here Senator Cayetano:
the Japanese government I know it is a foreign government that funded a study of the So, may I ask the sponsor to accept this, Mr. President.
organizational setup of the DECS has recommended the abolition of school supervisors.
Senator Aquino-Oreta:
This is the reason this representation would like to ensure that the traditional function of the Mr. President, what was the amendment?
school supervisors, among which is to supervise school principals, remain as such. What is
good for the Japanese education is not necessarily good for the Philippines. This Senator Cayetano:
representation knows that this is precisely one of the complaints of the school supervisors. To insert a new paragraph, paragraph (b) in line 18, which states: SUPERVISE SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS IN THE DISTRICT.
The lady sponsor admitted that, indeed, there is an effort to phase out the school
supervisors. That is precisely my point, Mr. President. I do not want the school supervisors to The President:
be phased out simply because a foreign government which funded the study of our education May I suggest, THE SUPERVISION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THE DISTRICT, because
has suggested it.
Senator Cayetano:
The President: Yes, Mr. President.
What does the sponsor say?
The President:
Senator Aquino-Oreta: the antecedent for that is, The schools district supervisor shall be responsible for.
Mr. President, actually, it is not Japanese. It is an ADB proposal to the DECS. The DECS had
a study made on how to improve the management order of the DECS. That was one of the Senator Cayetano:
proposals. They gave three proposals. One of them was to take out the school supervisors. That is right, Mr. President. Supervision, yes.
With the permission of the lady senator, after consulting her and the Majority Leader, I would
The President: like to propose an amendment by rewording the original amendment I was proposing last
What does the sponsor say? night.The reworded proposed amendment would be like this: CURRICULA SUPERVISION.

The President:
That would be on what page?
Senator Aquino-Oreta:
Mr. President, may I have one minute?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION Senator Cayetano:


That would be on page 10, line 17, as a new paragraph (b).
Senator Tatad:
Mr. President, I move that we suspend the session for one minute. The President:
And how will it read?
The President:
Is there any objection? (Silence) There being none, the session is suspended for one minute. Senator Cayetano:
CURRICULA SUPERVISION.
It was 5:33 p.m.
The President:
RESUMPTION OF SESSION Just that?

At 5:43 p.m., the session was resumed. Senator Cayetano:


Just that, Mr. President.
The President:
The session is resumed. Senator Tatad:
Put a semicolon (;).
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF S. NO. 2191
Senator Cayetano:
Senator Tatad: And because of that, line 18 which is paragraph (b), should now be paragraph (c).
Mr. President, we are still trying to find a way out of these conflicting points of view on the
role of the supervisor. To allow the parties to have a little more time to work on this, I move The President:
that we suspend consideration of Senate Bill No. 2191. (Underscoring supplied)[32] What does the sponsor say?
When the session resumed, Senator Cayetano no longer pursued his proposed amendment,
and moved instead that the same be amended to read Curricula Supervision. The Senate Senator Aquino-Oreta:
approved the proposal of the Senator: The amendment is accepted, Mr. President. (Underscoring supplied)[33]

The President: Thus, under R.A. No. 9155, administrative supervision over school heads is not one of those
The session is resumed. Senator Cayetano is recognized. responsibilities conferred on district supervisors.

CAYETANO AMENDMENT It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act,
or consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim expressio
Senator Cayetano: unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain
Thank you, Mr. President. matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule
proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations
in a statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those
expressly mentioned.[34]
It is not surprising that Senator Aquino-Oreta maintained her position that district supervisors Under DECS Order No. 36, Series of 1998 issued by DECS Secretary Erlinda C. Pefianco,
should not have administrative control or even supervision over ESPs and SSPs. As early as the positions of district supervisors were restored to their original status as a supervisory level
1990, the DECS had adopted the policy that, effective January 1, 1991, the positions of in the DECS administrative hierarchy subject to the following guidelines:
district supervisors and division supervisors would be gradually phased out by not filling-up
these positions as they become vacant.[35] On September 17, 1991, then DECS Secretary 1.1 The positions of Education and District Supervisors are hereby restored to their original
Isidro Cario issued DECS Order No. 110, Series of 1991, declaring that, to foster better status as a supervisory level in the DECS administrative hierarchy, subject to the following
considerations and articulation of progress in the elementary level, all elementary school guidelines:
principals shall report directly to the school division superintendents. In his Order dated June
22, 1994, then DECS Secretary Armand V. Fabella declared that DECS Order No. 110 shall 1.1.1 The functions of a district supervisor as an instructional leader and resource person for
remain in effect, with the recommendation that, in order to facilitate the phase-out of district teachers should be emphasized.
supervisor positions, incumbent district supervisors were encouraged to transfer to vacant
division supervisor positions, provided they meet the qualification standards for such In the event of restoration and appointment of public schools district supervisor, the
positions.[36] For his part, in his DECS Order No. 22, Series of 1996, DECS Secretary Ricardo designation of the coordinating principal shall be withdrawn.
T. Gloria restored the district supervisor positions but only on a selective basis and subject to
the following guidelines: Appointment of district supervisors shall be issued by regional directors only upon verification
from the Department of Budget and Management that the positions still exist since a number
a) Schools superintendents, with the concurrence/approval of their regional directors, may of vacated district supervisor positions in some divisions may have been converted to other
have the option to restore the position in selected districts after a careful evaluation of positions and/or otherwise phased out since 1991.[38]
need. For this purpose, the number of schools and their geographical location and distance
for effective monitoring, the availability of regular transportation, urban-rural setting, etc., However, as already stated, the Senate resolved to maintain the positions of district
should be considered in the decision. supervisors but limited their responsibilities only to those enumerated in Section 7(D) of R.A.
No. 9155 to conform to the basic thrust and objectives of the law. Far from strengthening the
b) The role of the district supervisor as an instructional leader and resource for teachers, office of the district supervisors as a mid-head field office of the DepEd, the law limited the
rather than merely as an administrative supervisor, should be emphasized in their functions authority and responsibility attached to such position.
and duties.
While it is true that the district supervisor is given a support staff for program promotion, it
c) In the event of restoration and appointment of the position in a particular district, the school cannot thereby be implied that he/she likewise has administrative supervision over ESPs and
superintendent shall ensure that the system of field supervision previous to the issuance of SSPs. Such a construction has no basis in law and in fact. Indeed, such a construction of the
DECS Orders No. 110, s. 1991 and No. 41, s. 1994 shall, likewise, be statute defeats the very purpose of the law.
restored. Correspondingly, the designation of coordinating principals in affected districts shall
be withdrawn. It is a basic precept that the intent of the legislature is the controlling factor in the
interpretation of the statute. The particular words, clauses, and phrases should not be studied
d) Should a division office opt not to restore some or all district supervisor positions, the funds as detached and isolated expression, but the whole and every part of the statute must be
for such positions may be used to create new positions or upgrade existing positions, subject considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious
to the approval of the Department of Budget and Management. whole.[39]

e) Considering that a number of vacated district supervisor positions in some divisions may Besides, Congress enumerated the duties and responsibilities of a district
have been converted to other positions and/or otherwise phased out since 1991, supervisor. Congress would not have made specific enumerations in a statute if it had the
appointments of district supervisors shall be issued by regional directors only upon intention not to restrict or limit its meaning and confine its terms only to those expressly
verification from the Department of Budget and Management that the said position may be enumerated. Courts may not, in the guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and
filled. include situations not provided nor intended by Congress.[40]

It is enjoined that regional directors and schools superintendents shall exert special effort to The submission of the OSG, that the schools district supervisors have the administrative
ensure that the implementation of this Order shall be harmonious and conducive to field supervision over school heads, is more in accord with the law, to wit:
supervision.[37]
Section 7 of RA 9155, on School District Level, pertinently provides that a school district shall enhance the employment status, professional competence, welfare, and working conditions
have a school district supervisor and an office staff for program promotion, and that the of all the DepEd personnel.[42]
schools district supervisor shall be responsible for: (1) (p)roviding professional and
instructional advice and support to the school heads and teachers/facilitators of schools and We agree that R.A. No. 9155 does not provide who has disciplinary authority over the
learning centers in the district [or] cluster thereof; (2) (c)urricula supervision; and, teaching personnel of the DepEd. However, under Section 3, Chapter III of DECS Order No.
(3) (p)erforming such other functions as may be assigned by the proper authorities. 33, Series of 1999, otherwise known as the 1999 DECS Rules of Procedure, the disciplining
authority in the DECS is the DepEd Secretary, with the regional directors acting as such in
A perusal of Section 7 shows that the District Supervisor has limited responsibilities, and that their respective regions except those appointed by the President.[43]
the power to exercise administrative supervision over the ESPs is not covered by
responsibility nos. 1 and 2. Neither is that power covered by the directive that the District The officers and employees referred to in the Rules of Procedure include teachers who,
Supervisor shall have an office staff for program promotion. The only logical conclusion, under R.A. No. 4670, shall mean:
therefore, that can be derived from the aforesaid enumeration of responsibilities is that the
District Supervisor may only exercise administrative supervision over ESPs when such x x x all persons engaged in classroom teaching, in any level of instruction, on full-time basis,
function is assigned by proper authorities. And, since the DepEd Secretary specifically including guidance counselors, school librarians, industrial arts, or vocational instructors, and
declared through the IRR of RA 9155, that the District Supervisor shall not exercise all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools,
administrative supervision over the ESPs, unless otherwise authorized, petitioners cannot colleges and universities operated by the Government or its political subdivisions; but shall
complain against the said declaration. On this score, it is settled that the intent of the statute not include school nurses, school physicians, school dentists, and other school employees.
is the law (Philippine National Bank v. Office of the President, 252 SCRA 5 [1996]). In the
absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be A division superintendent of schools is not a disciplining authority over teachers, whether
given their plain, ordinary and common usage meaning (Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of under R.A. No. 4670 or under the DECS Rules of Procedure. In fact, under Section 2,
Appeals, 257 SCRA 430 [1996]). Chapter VII of such Rules of Procedure, a division superintendent is a chairperson of the
investigating committee over formal complaints filed against such teachers:
Needless to say, Section 7, on Division Level, further provides that the School Division
Superintendent shall have authority, accountability and responsibility for, among a) When the respondent is an elementary or secondary school teacher, head teacher,
others, (s)upervising the operation of all public and private elementary, secondary and principal, district supervisor/chair/coordinator or Education Supervisor I
integrated schools, and learning centers. To claim, therefore, that the District Supervisor has
administrative supervision over the ESPs would also violate the above-quoted provision.[41] (1) The schools division superintendent or his or her duly authorized representative, as
chairperson;
The Court likewise declares that the last paragraph of Section 4.3 of the IRR, stating that the (2) The duly authorized representative of the school, district, or division teachers
regional director shall continue exercising disciplinary authority over the teaching personnel organization, as member; and
insofar as the latter are covered by specific and exclusive disciplinary provisions under R.A. (3) The division supervisor for elementary or secondary education where the respondent
No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers) does not contravene R.A. No. belongs, as member.
9155. Indeed, the IRR merely reiterates the DECS Rules of Procedure, DECS Order No. 33,
issued on March 30, 1999 by the DepEd Secretary, and R.A. No. 4670 which was approved The foregoing rule is based on Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 which reads:
on June 18, 1966, and pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative
Code, which provides that the DepEd Secretary is empowered to Sec. 9. Administrative Charges. Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard
initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the Division
a. Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, or a duly authorized representative who should, at least, have the rank of a division
functions, plans, programs, and projects; and supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its
absence, any existing provincial or national teachers organization and a supervisor of the
b. Promulgate administrative issuances necessary for the efficient administration of the Division, the last two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The committee shall
offices under the Secretary and for execution of the laws relative thereto. submit its findings and recommendations to the Director of Public Schools within thirty days
from the termination of the hearings: Provided, however, That where the school
Additionally, the IRR was issued by the DepEd Secretary pursuant to Section 7(A)(1) of R.A. superintendent is the complainant or an interested party, all the members of the committee
No. 9155, which mandates that the Secretary formulate national educational policies and shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education.
Anent the issue on reporting of acceptance of donations, Section 7(E)(11) of R.A. No. 9155 f. Certify classification actions and changes in class or grade of positions whenever the facts
provides: warrant, such certification to be binding on administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing,
accounting and auditing officers of the national government and government-owned or
(11) Accepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants for the purpose of upgrading controlled corporations and financial institutions.
teachers/learning facilitators competencies, improving and expanding school facilities, and
providing instructional materials and equipment. Such donations or grants must be
reported to the appropriate district supervisors and division
superintendents. (emphasis supplied) Sections 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 9155 provide:

However, Section 6.2(11), Rule VI of the IRR provides that: SEC. 10. The Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Budget and Management shall,
within ninety (90) days from the approval of this Act, jointly promulgate the guidelines on the
(11) Accepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants in accordance with existing laws and allocation, distribution, and utilization of resources provided by the national government for
policy of the Department for the purpose of upgrading teachers/learning facilitators the field offices, taking into consideration the uniqueness of the working conditions of the
competencies, improving and expanding school facilities, and providing instructional teaching service.
materials and equipment. Such donations or grants must be reported to the division
superintendents. (emphasis supplied) The Secretary of the Department of Education shall ensure that resources appropriated for
the field offices are adequate and that resources for school personnel, school desks, and
We agree with petitioners contention that, under the law, donations and grants must be textbooks and other instructional materials intended are allocated directly and released
reported to the appropriate district supervisors and not immediately by the Department of Budget and Management to said offices.
only to the division superintendents. The use in the law of the word must is an expression of
the mandatory nature of the reporting of donations and grants to district supervisors. The SEC. 11. The Secretary of the Department of Education, subject to civil service laws
reason for the provision is that such grants and donations which are intended to upgrade and regulations, shall issue appropriate personnel policy rules and regulations that
teachings/learning facilitators competencies, improve and expand school facilities, and will best meet the requirements of the teaching profession taking into consideration
provide instructional materials and equipment will assist the school district supervisors in the the uniqueness of the working conditions of the teaching service.
performance of their duties and responsibilities under Section 7(D) of R.A. No. 9155, and
submit appropriate recommendations to the proper administrative officers. And insofar as the salary system for teaching positions is concerned, Section 14 provides:

On petitioners plaint of the failure of respondents to upgrade their salary grade level to at SEC. 14. The Salary System for Teaching Position. The salary grade of a teacher shall be
most SG 21, and for the issuance of the writ of mandamus mandating respondents to determined in accordance with the following:
increase their salary grade from SG 19 to 24, the same is premature.
a. The Teachers Preparation Pay Schedule shall be prepared by the Commission in
There is no showing in the petition that, before filing their petition, petitioners sought an consultation with the Department of Education and Culture. Under this system, the teacher's
adjustment of level of their salary grade from SG 19 to SG 21 before respondents or the Civil academic or educational preparation, teaching experience in both private and public schools,
Service Commission. Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended by Section 14 and extra-curricular activities for professional growth, shall be considered in pursuance of the
of R.A. No. 6758, otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law, provides: principle of 'equal pay for equal training and experience.'

Sec. 17. Powers and Functions. The Budget Commission (now Department of Budget and xxxx
Management), principally through the OCPC (now CPCB, Compensation and Position
Classification Board) shall, in addition to those provided under other Sections of this Decree, d. The Budget Commission, in coordination and consultation with the Department of
have the following powers and functions: Education and Culture and the Civil Service Commission may, when future needs require,
modify, change or otherwise improve on the salary system herein established for the teaching
a. Administer the compensation and position classification system established herein and and closely related occupations, any change that may be made as provided herein shall
revise it as necessary; become part of the implementing rules of this Decree to be issued by the Budget Commission
upon prior approval by the President.
xxxx
Moreover, the issue of whether or not respondents should be compelled to adjust upwards 5.4 The herein salary increases shall be effected through the issuance of a Notice of Salary
the salary grade of petitioners to SG 21 has become moot and academic, because, on Adjustment (NOSA) by the duly authorized official. (Annex C)
November 3, 2003, the DepEd and the DBM issued Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2003
containing the guidelines in the implementation of the Salary Upgrading for District and 6.0 FUNDING SOURCE
Education Supervisors, to wit:
The amounts necessary to implement the salary adjustments authorized herein shall be
4.0 GUIDELINES charged against the Nationwide lump sum appropriation for the purpose amounting to fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000) in the DepEds budget in RA 9206, the CY 2003 General
4.1 To maintain the previous salary grade relationships under RA No. 6758 among the PSDS Appropriations Act. For CY 2004, the same shall be charged against the lump sum
and ES I, on the one hand, and Elementary School Principal (ESP) IV and Secondary School appropriation for the purpose that may be included in the 2004 budget.
Principal (SSP) II, on the other hand, and to preserve the consistency in the salary grade
relationships of said positions, the following are hereby authorized: 7.0 POST-AUDIT

4.1.1 Upgrading of the PSDS and ES I positions from SG-19 to SG-20 in July 2003 and to Any salary adjustment paid under this Circular shall be subject to post-audit by the DBM ROs
SG-21 in July 2004; concerned. Any payments thereof which are not in accordance herewith shall be adjusted
4.1.2 Upgrading of the ES II positions by two (2) salary grades from SG-20 to SG-21 in July accordingly.
2003 and to SG-22 in July 2004;
4.1.3 A one-step salary adjustment to incumbents of ES III positions starting July 2003 and 8.0 CONTRIBUTIONS
another one-step salary adjustment starting July 2004;
4.1.4 A one-step salary adjustment to incumbents of CES positions starting July 2003 and The salary adjustments authorized herein are subject to the mandatory requirements for life
another one-step salary adjustment starting July 2004. and retirement premiums, and health insurance premiums.

4.2 Attached herewith is Annex A containing the summary of the guidelines for the salary 9.0 SAVING CLAUSE
upgrading of positions authorized herein.
Conflicts arising from the implementation of the provisions of this Circular shall be resolved
5.0 SALARY RULES by the Department of Education, upon prior consultation with the Department of Budget and
Management.
5.1 For purposes of the salary upgrading herein authorized, the basic salary of the employee
concerned shall be adjusted as follows: 10.0 EFFECTIVITY

5.1.1 Effective July 1, 2003 at the same salary step of his assigned salary grade as of June This Circular Letter shall take effect on July 1, 2003.
30, 2003 (Illustrative Example A) adopting the Salary Schedule prescribed under National
Budget Circular (NBC) No. 474 (Annex B); IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition for prohibition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
5.1.2 Effective July 1, 2004 at the same salary step of his assigned salary grade as of June Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 is declared valid, except Section 6.2(11), Rule VI thereof
30, 2004 (Illustrative Example A) adopting the Salary Schedule prescribed under National which provides that donations or grants shall be reported only to the division
Budget Circular (NBC) No. 474 (Annex B). superintendents. Such donations or grants must also be reported to the appropriate school
district supervisors, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9155. Petitioners prayer for the
5.2 The transition allowance as defined in 3.2 being received by the PSDS and ES, if any, issuance of a writ of mandamus is DENIED for lack of merit. No costs.
shall be considered as advance entitlement of the salary increase herein
authorized.(Illustrative Examples B and C)
SO ORDERED.
5.3 No step adjustment shall be granted to incumbents of positions whose salary already falls
at or exceeds the maximum step (eighth step) of the salary grade allocation of their
positions. (Illustrative Example D) ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
Petitioner: The Public Schools District Supervisors Association (PSDSA), with its  RA 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) became a law in accordance
officers and members with Sec. 27(1), Art. VI of the Constitution. Under the law, each regional office shall
Respondents: Hon. Edilberto C. De Jesus, Department Secretary, DepEd, and The have a director, an assistant director, and an office staff for program promotion and
Department Of Budget And Management support, planning, administrative and fiscal services.
Doctrine: The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the  The office of the schools district supervisor has been retained under the law. Each
implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the district is headed by a school district supervisor and an office staff for program
legislative enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend promotion. However, the responsibilities of the schools district supervisor were
the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in limited.
the legislature.  The schools district supervisors have no administrative, management, control or
supervisory functions over the schools and learning centers within their respective
CALLEJO, SR., J.: districts.
SUMMARY:  Under Sec. 14 of the law, the DepEd Secretary is mandated to “promulgate the
RA 9155 implementing rules and regulations within 90 days after the approval of the Act,
 enacted to change the governance of DepEd due to the evolutio of learning process provided that the principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented within 2
 Enacted to improve the managemebt of DepEd years” after such approval.
 retained the position of the petitioners as district supervisors with limited  Before the DepEd could issue the appropriate implementing rules and regulations,
responsibilities: PSDSA sought the legal assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
1. providing professional and instructional advice and support to the school heads and National Committee on Legal Aid to make representations for the resolution of the
teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof; following administrative issues:
2. curricula supervision; and 1. Restoration of the functions, duties, responsibilities, benefits, prerogatives, and
3. performing such other functions as may be assigned by proper authorities. position level of Public Schools District Supervisors.
PSDSA 2. Upgrading of Salary Grade level of Public Schools District Supervisors from Salary
 originally has the admin supervision over the elem and public high schools over their Grade Level 19 to Salary Grade Level 24 under DBM Circular No. 36, otherwise
jurisdiction (with respect to both affairs/admin of the schools and curriculum) known as the Compensation and Position Classification Rules and Regulation.
 contend that the IRR implemented by DepEd expanded and modified the provisions  PSDSA thus requested the DepEd Secretary to call an immediate consultation with
of RA 9155, particularly: the district supervisors nationwide through a convention, and their valid inputs be
1. limiting the admin supervision of the district supervisors (petitioners); and considered in formulating the rules and regulations to be urged by the DepEd.
2. the donations, gifts (sec 6.2(11) of IRR) was a modification of RA 9155 as such However, the Secretary failed to reply.
report must be reported to them as district supervisors and not only to division  DepEd Secretary Edilberto C. De Jesus thereafter issued DECS Office Order No. 1
superintendent (rulling is the last part of the digest) which constitutes the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9155.
 PSDSA led a petition for prohibition and mandamus with SC.
FACTS Contentions of the PETITIONERS (PSDSA):
 Ever since DepEd was founded, its management had been so centralized in the  IRR of RA 9155 expanded and modified provisions which are diametrically opposed
Manila office. Schools in the national, regional, and division levels merely followed to the letter and spirit of the subject law. They argue that the said law should be read
and implemented the orders and memoranda issued by the Education Secretary. in harmony with the existing educational laws.
Due to the evolution of the learning process and the onset of information technology,  The act of the DepEd in removing the petitioners’ administrative supervision over
there was a need for a radical change in the governance of the DepEd. Thus, a study elementary schools and its principals within his/her district and converting his/her
on how to improve the management of the Department was conducted, and one of administrative function to that of performing staff for the division is a gross violation of
the proposals was the abolition of the office of the district supervisor. RA 9155;
 Then Senator Tessie Aquino-Oreta, the Chairman of the Committee on Education,  Ultimately, petitioners allege that by the implementation of the IRR they are stripped
authored Senate Bill No. 2191, the thrust of which was to change the existing of their administrative functions.
management style and focus on the schools where the teaching-learning process Contentions of the Private RESPONDENT (SolGen):
occurs. The bill was intended to highlight shared governance in the different levels in  7(D) of R.A. No. 9155 shows that the district supervisor has limited responsibilities,
the DECS hierarchy and establish authority, accountability, and responsibility for and that the power to exercise administrative supervision over the ESPs is not
achieving higher learning outcomes. covered by any of those responsibilities. The Education Secretary is the disciplining
authority in the DepEd, with the regional directors acting as the disciplining authority  As gleaned from the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2191, the district
in their respective regions. supervisors were divested of any administrative supervision over elementary and
 As to petitioners’ gripe that the IRR deleted district supervisors from among those public high schools. Senator Aquino-Oreta’s comment:
school heads who should report when “[a]ccepting donations, gifts, bequests, and “Mr. President, may I just explain. There are two school supervisors. One is for the academic
grants x x x” the OSG avers that this reportorial function is “directory” and merely for function and the other is for the administrative function. As such, if these two supervisors will
“convenience.” dictate to the principals, then our thrust in reducing the level of bureaucracy might not bemet.
ISSUE: Whether the IRR extended RA 9155. – NO Also, the thrust of this governance bill really is to flesh out the importance of the school as the
RULING: heart of education here. In that heart, we have the teacher, the student, and the school head.
Administrative bodies are allowed to implement policies. What we are trying to do here is to bring to the forefront the school itself. In fact, right now,
 It must be stressed that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the there is a move in the DECS to do away with the school supervisor in charge of
implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the administrative and leave that function to the principal. If the principal, the school head will be
legislative enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend dictated upon by these two school supervisors, we might not be able to achieve what we
the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested want to do here putting to the forefront the school itself. Meaning, putting to the forefront the
in the legislature. school head, the teacher, and the student.”
 It bears stressing, however, that administrative bodies are allowed under their power x x x
of subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by “But precisely, Mr. President, we are not doing that, we are not taking them out. What we are
“filling in” the details. All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the saying is for the school supervisor to focus on the curriculum because in the administration of
objectives and purposes of the law; that the regulation does not contradict but the affairs of the school, we are saying that the principal knows best how to administer or how
conforms with the standards prescribed by law. to run the school better. And so, we are saying here that school supervisors will be there
 Moreover, as a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to the decisions contrary to the view of that ADB study. We will maintain them, but the focus of the school
and/or actions of administrative authorities not only because of the doctrine of supervisors will be on the curriculum of the schools.”
separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and expertise in
the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction. The rationale
for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern
or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for
addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the accumulation of
experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency
charged with implementing a particular statute.
Disposition: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition for prohibition is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2003 is declared valid, except Section 6.2(11),
Rule VI thereof which provides that “donations or grants shall be reported only to the division
superintendents.” Such donations or grants must also be reported to the appropriate school
district supervisors, as mandated by Republic Act No. 9155. Petitioners’ prayer for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus is DENIED for lack of merit. No costs. SO ORDERED.

OTHER ISSUES:
Whether the IRR for RA 9155 is a valid exercise of quasi-legislative power of DepEd. –
PARTLY YES(except Sec. 2(11), Rule VI regarding the reporting of donation)
Definition of Administrative supervision
 Administrative supervision means “overseeing or the power or authority of an officer
to see that their subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects
to fulfill them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make
them perform their duties.
Senate deliberations showed the intent to divest from the district supervisor any
administrative supervision
RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DE PARUNGAO, VENUS M. POZON AND other Pursuant to the aforesaid Law and Circular, respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate
similarly situated personnel of the LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION auditor, disallowed on post audit, the payment of honoraria to the herein petitioners.
(LWUA), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN in
his capacity as COA-LWUA Corporate Auditor respondents. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the COA, questioning the validity and enforceability of
DBM-CCC No. 10. More specifically, petitioners contend that DBM-CCC No. 10 is
DECISION inconsistent with the provisions of Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is supposed to implement) and,
therefore, void. And it is without force and effect because it was not published in the Official
PURISIMA, J.: Gazette; petitioners stressed.

The pivotal issue raised in this petition is whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the In its decision dated January 29, 1993, the COA upheld the validity and effectivity of DBM-
payment of honoraria which they were receiving prior to the effectivity of Rep. Act 6758. CCC No. 10 and sanctioned the disallowance of petitioners honoraria.[3]

Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Prior to July 1, Undaunted, petitioners found their way to this court via the present petition, posing the
1989, they were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA Board Secretariat questions:
and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee.
(1) Whether or not par. 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 can supplant or negate the express
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (Rep. Act 6758), entitled An Act Prescribing A provisions of Sec. 12 of Rep. Act 6758 which it seeks to implement; and
Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other
Purposes, took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and (2) Whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 is legally effective despite its lack of publication in the
additional compensation into standardized salary rates. Certain additional compensations, Official Gazette. Petitioners are of the view that par. 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 prohibiting
however, were exempted from consolidation. fringe benefits and allowances effective November 1, 1989, is violative of Sec. 12 of Rep.
Act 6758 which authorizes payment of additional compensation not integrated into the
Section 12, Rep. Act 6758, reads - standardized salary which incumbents were enjoying prior to July 1, 1989.

Sec. 12. - Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation.- Allowances, except for To buttress petitioners stance, the Solicitor General presented a Manifestation and Motion in
representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence Lieu of Comment, opining that Sec. 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 is a nullity for being inconsistent
allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; with and repugnant to the very law it is intended to implement. The Solicitor General
hazard pay; allowances of foreign services personnel stationed abroad; and such other theorized, that:
additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM,
shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other xxx following the settled principle that implementing rules must necessarily adhere to and not
additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents as of July depart from the provisions of the statute it seeks to implement, it is crystal clear that Section
1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 is a patent nullity. An implementing rule can only be declared valid if
to be authorized.[1] (Underscoring supplied) it is in harmony with the provisions of the legislative act and for the sole purpose of carrying
into effect its general provisions. When an implementing rule is inconsistent or repugnant to
To implement Rep. Act 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued the provisions of the statute it seeks to interpret, the mandate of the statute must prevail and
Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without must be followed.[4]
qualification effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of
basic salary. Respondent COA, on the other hand, pointed out that to allow honoraria without
statutory, presidential or DBM authority, as in this case, would run counter to Sec. 8, Article
Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 provides : IX-B of the Constitution which proscribes payment of additional or double compensation,
unless specifically authorized by law. Therefore, the grant of honoraria or like allowances
Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on requires a specific legal or statutory authority. And DBM-CCC No. 10 need not be published
top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, xxx shall be discontinued effective November for it is merely an interpretative regulation of a law already published[5]; COA concluded.
1, 1989. Payment made for such allowances/fringe benefits after said date shall be
considered as illegal disbursement of public funds.[2]
In his Motion for Leave to intervene, the DBM Secretary asserted that the honoraria in interpret but to fill in the details of the Central Bank Act which that body is supposed to
question are considered included in the basic salary, for the reason that they are not listed as enforce. (Italics ours)
exceptions under Sec. 12 of Rep. Act 6758.
The same ruling was reiterated in the case of Philippine Association of Service Exporters,
Before resolving the other issue - whether or not Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 can Inc. vs. Torres, 212 SCRA 299 [1992].
supplant or negate the pertinent provisions of Rep. Act 6758 which it seeks to implement, we
have to tackle first the other question whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 has legal force and On the need for publication of subject DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the affirmative. Following
effect notwithstanding the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette. This should the doctrine enunciated in Tanada, publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
take precedence because should we rule that publication in the Official Gazette or in a general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines [6] is sine qua non to the effectiveness or administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated
enforceability of DBM-CCC No. 10, resolution of the first issue posited by petitioner would not differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite
be necessary. publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

The applicable provision of law requiring publication in the Official Gazette is found in Article In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which
2 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which reads: completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to
government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive
the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep
such publication. body and soul together. At the very least, before the said circular under attack may be
permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees
In Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 453, 454, this Court succinctly construed the aforecited concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official
provision of law in point, thus: Gazette or in anewspaper of general circulation in the Philippines - to the end that they be
given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate
We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and
be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication rudiments of fairness and transparency.
unless a different effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. In light of the foregoing disquisition on the ineffectiveness of DBM-CCC No. 10 due to its non-
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country, as
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the required by law, resolution of the other issue at bar is unnecessary.
President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by
the legislature or, at present, deirectly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, the assailed Decision of respondent
regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law Commission on Audit is SET ASIDE, and respondents are ordered to pass on audit the
pursuant to a valid delegation. honoraria of petitioners. No pronouncement as to costs.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the SO ORDERED.
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is
publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of
their duties.

Accordingly, even the charter of a city must be published notwithstanding that it applies to
only a portion of the national territory and directly affects only the inhabitants of that place. All
presidential decrees must be published, including even, say, those naming a public place
after a favored individual or exempting him from certain prohibitions or requirements. The
circulars issued by the Monetary Board must be published if they are meant not merely to
PEOPLE vs. MACEREN The rule-making power must be confined to details forregulating the mode or proceeding to
carry into effect the law as ithis been enacted. The power cannot be extended to amending
79 SCRA 450, G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977 orexpanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters notcovered by the statute.
Rules that subvert the statute cannot besanctioned.
Facts:

The respondents were charged with violating FisheriesAdministrative Order No. 84-1 which
penalizes electro fishing infresh water fisheries. This was promulgated by the Secretary
ofAgriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner ofFisheries under the
old Fisheries Law and the law creating theFisheries Commission. The municipal court
quashed the complaintand held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, hencethe
executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same.On appeal, the CFI affirmed the
dismissal. Hence, this appeal to theSC.

Issue:

Whether or not the administrative order penalizingelectro fishing is valid.

Held:

NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resourcesand the Commissioner of Fisheries
exceeded their authority inissuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries Law
does notexpressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not bannedunder that law, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resourcesand the Commissioner of Fisheries are
powerless to penalize it. Hadthe lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a
penalprovision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the oldFisheries Law.The
lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executiveofficial the power to declare what acts
should constitute an offense.It can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of
thepenalty provided for in the law itself.Where the legislature has delegated to executive
oradministrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules tocarry out an express
legislative purpose, the rules of administrativeofficers and boards, which have the effect of
extending, or whichconflict with the authority granting statute, do not represent a validprecise
of the rule-making power but constitute an attempt by anadministrative body to legislate

Administrative agent are clothed with rule-making powersbecause the lawmaking body finds
it impracticable, if not impossible,to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex
situationsthat may be encountered in enforcing the law. All that is required isthat the
regulation should be germane to the defects and purposesof the law and that it should
conform to the standards that the lawprescribes.Administrative regulations adopted under
legislativeauthority by a particular department must be in harmony with theprovisions of the
law, and should be for the sole purpose of carryinginto effect its general provisions. By such
regulations, of course, thelaw itself cannot be extended.
PHIL. CONSUMERS FOUNDATION INC. vs. SECRETARY OFEDUCATION, CULTURE & duties under the law.In the absence of a statute stating otherwise, this powerincludes the
SPORTS power to prescribe school fees. No other governmentagency has been vested with the
authority to fix school fees and assuch, the power should be considered lodged with the
153 SCRA 622, G.R. No. 78385, August 31, 1987 DECS if it is t properly and effectively discharge its functions and duties under thelaw.The
function of prescribing rates by an administrativeagency may be either a legislative or an
Facts: adjudicative function. If itwere a legislative function, the grant of prior notice and hearing tothe
affected parties is not a requirement of due process. As regardsrates prescribed by an
Herein petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. isa non-stock, nonprofit corporate administrative agency in the exercise of itsquasi-judicial function, prior notice and hearing are
entity duly organized and existingunder the laws of the Philippines. The herein respondent essential to thevalidity of such rates.When the rules and/or rates laid down by
Secretaryof Education, Culture and Sports is a ranking cabinet member whoheads the anadministrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of agiven kind throughout the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports of the Officeof the President of the country, they may partake of a legislativecharacter. Where the rules and the rates imposed
Philippines.On February 21, 1987, the Task Force on Private Higher Educationcreated by the apply exc usivelyto a particular party, based upon a finding of fact, then its function
DECS submitted a report entitled "Report andRecommendations on a Policy for Tuition and isquasijudicial in character.Is Department Order No. 37 issued by the DECS in theexercise of
Other School Fees."The DECS through the respondent Secretary of Education, Cultureand its legislative function? We believe so. The assailedDepartment Order prescribes the
Sports (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Secretary),issued an Order authorizing, maximum school fees that may becharged by all private schools in the country for schoolyear
inter alia, the 15% to 20% increase inschool fees as recommended by the Task Force.The 1987 to1988. This being so, prior notice and hearing are not essential to thevalidity of its
petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said Order,apparently on the ground that the issuance.
increases were too high.Thereafter, the DECS issued Department Order No. 37 dated
April10, 1987 modifying its previous Order and reducing the increases toa lower ceiling of
10% to 15%, accordingly. Despite this reduction,the petitioner still opposed the
increases.Thus, the petitioner went to the Court and filed the instant Petitionfor prohibition,
seeking that judgment be rendered declaring thequestioned Department Order
unconstitutional. The thrust of thePetition is that the said Department Order was issued
without anylegal basis.In support of the first argument, the petitioner argues thatwhile the
DECS is authorized by law to regulate school fees ineducational institutions, the power to
regulate does not alwaysinclude the power to increase school fees.

Issue:

Whether or not the act of DECS in authorizing the increaseof school fees is valid.

Held:

Yes. The Court is not convinced by the argument that thepower to regulate school fees
"does not always include the power toincrease" such fees. Section 57 (3) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 232,otherwise known as The Education Act of 1982, vests the DECS withthe power to
regulate the educational system in the country, to wit:'SEC. 57. Educations and powers of the
Ministry.

The Ministry
shall:"x x x. "(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary for theadministration,
supervision and regulation of the educational
systemin accordance with declared policy. "x x x"Section 70 of the same Act grants the
DECS the power toissue rules which are likewise necessary to discharge its functionsand