A. Modes of termination
Fernandez v Ledesma, G.R. No. L-1!, "-"#-$"
Fa%ts& Celso A. Fernandez was appointed ad interim chief of police of Basilan City on January 7, 1954, too his oath of o!ce on the sa"e date, and his appoint"ent was con#r"ed $y the Co""ission on Appoint"ents on April %1, 1954. &n June ', 1957, (resident Carlos (. )arcia, in an ad"inistrati*e order, suspended Fernandez for one "onth for ha*in+ $een found +uilty of +ross ne+li+ence, *iolation of law, and dereliction of duty. Fernandez was later char+ed $efore the Court of First nstance of Basilan City with two o-enses, one for diso$edience of an order of his superior o!cer Cri"inal Case /o. 0'2 and another for oral defa"ation Cri"inal Case /o. 40'2, for which he was suspended fro" o!ce $y the then 3ecuti*e ecretary Fortunato de 6eon. e ased that his order of suspension $e lifted $ut it was denied. After the prosecution had rested its cases and without re8uirin+ the accused to su$"it his defense, the latter was ac8uitted in the two cri"inal cases a$o*e"entioned. /e*ertheless, Fernandez continued suspended e*en if no for"al ad"inistrati*e char+e were instituted a+ainst hi", or any ad"inistrati*e in*esti+ation conducted of said char+es. &n April %', 1959, the then 3ecuti*e ecretary Juan C. (ao wrote Fernandez infor"in+ hi" that the (resident has ter"inated his ser*ices as chief of  police of Basilan City and has desi+nated Cecilio 6edes"a in his place re8uestin+ hi" at the sa"e ti"e to turn o*er his o!ce to 6edes"a. :he no"ination of 6edes"a ha*in+ $een con#r"ed $y the Co""ission on Appoint"ents, he too his oath of o!ce as new chief of  police of Basilan City on ;ay %, 1959. <hereupon, Fernandez instituted an action for quo warranto with "anda"us a+ainst 6edes"a $efore the Court of First nstance of Basilan City seein+ his reinstate"ent on the +round that his re"o*al fro" o!ce without cause as pro*ided $y law was in *iolation of our Constitution. Iss'e& <&/, the re"o*al of Fernandez fro" o!ce $y the (resident was *alid in accordance with ection 17, =A %'' > Charter of the City of Basilan. (eld)Ratio&  ?es, it is clear that the (resident in the eercise of his discretion has put an end to the ser*ices of appellant as chief of police of Basilan City on April %', 1959, and this he did pursuant to the authority conferred upon hi" $y ection 17 of =epu$lic Act %'', nown as the Charter of the City of Basilan, which reads as follows@
3C. 17.  Appointment and removal of ocers and employees  Compensation.  :he (resident shall appoint with the consent of the Co""ission on Appoint"ents, the "unicipal ud+e and auiliary "unicipal ud+e, the city en+ineer, the city treasurer assessor, the city attorney, the chief of police and the other chiefs of depart"ents of  the city which "ay $e created fro" ti"e to ti"e, and the President may remove at  his discretion any of said appointive ocers   with the eception of the "unicipal  ud+e, who "ay $e re"o*ed only accordin+ to law. 3"phasis supplied2
 
ser*ices of appellant as chief of police. <e a+ree with the fore+oin+ interpretation. <hen the law says that the (resident "ay re"o*e at his discretion any of the appointi*e o!cers of the city with the eception of the "unicipal ud+e who "ay $e re"o*ed only accordin+ to law, it is e*ident that the le+islati*e intent is to "ae the continuance in o!ce of any of said appointi*e o!cers dependent upon the pleasure of the (resident. f such were not the case, it would not ha*e "ade a distinction in point of re"o*al $etween appointi*e o!cers in +eneral and the "unicipal ud+e. :his distinction *erily is predicated upon the fact that nowhere in =epu$lic Act /o. %'' is there any "ention that the ter" of o!ce of the chief of police, and for that "atter of any appointi*e o!cer, with the eception of the "unicipal ud+e, should $e for a #ed period.  :he fact no ter" of o!ce is #ed for that position is indicati*e of an intention to "ae it dependent upon the discretion or pleasure of the appointin+ power. And Con+ress is not wantin+ in power to do so for, as it was aptly said@ A pu$lic o!ce is the ri+ht, authority and duty, created and conferred $y law, $y which for a +i*en period, either #ed $y law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an indi*idual is in*ested with so"e portion of the so*erei+n function of the +o*ern"ent, to $e eercised $y hi" for the $ene#t of the pu$lic 7 ;eche", (u$lic &!cers, ection 1E ee also 4% A". Jur., 944955E Emphasis supplied2. And in Alba v. Alajar, ! ".#. $o. , p. %&' , this Court also said@ Con+ress can le+ally and constitutionally "ae the tenure of certain o!cials dependent upon the pleasure of the (resident. Appellant, howe*er, does not a+ree with the fore+oin+ *iew for he contends that the act of  the (resident in appointin+ Cecilio 6edes"a to the position of chief of police of Basilan City in his place is tanta"ount to his re"o*al without cause fro" o!ce in *iolation of ection 4, Article , of our Constitution, in*oin+ in support thereof our rulin+ in the cases of (e los )antos v. *allare, &+ ".#., %-%  and acson v. /oque, &- ".#., -! . But this contention cannot $e sustained considerin+ that the position of the chief of police does not ha*e a #ed ter". As already said, it was "ade dependent upon the discretion or pleasure of the (resident, whereas the cases in*oed $y appellant relate to positions for which the law #es a de#nite ter" of o!ce. <hat is in point here is the case of  Alba v. Alajar , supra, wherein this Court "ade the followin+ pronounce"ent@  :he per*adin+ error of the respondents lies in the fact that they insist on the act of the (resident in desi+natin+ petitioner Al$a in the place of respondent Alaar as one of removal.  :he replace"ent of respondent Alaar is not removal, but an e0piration of his tenure , which is one the ordinary "odes of ter"inatin+ o!cial relations. &n this score, section %545 of the =e*ised Ad"inistrati*e Code which was declared inoperati*e in the antos *s. ;allare case, is di-erent fro" section ' of =epu$lic Act /o. G0. ection %54 refers to removal  at pleasure while section ' of =epu$lic Act /o. G0 refers to holding oce at the pleasure of  the President . Clearly, what is in*ol*ed here is not the 8uestion of re"o*al, or whether le+al cause should precede or not that re"o*al. <hat is in*ol*ed here is the creation of an o!ce and the tenure of such o!ce, which has $een "ade epressly dependent upon the pleasure of the (resident.  :he cases relied upon $y respondents are, therefore, inopposite to the instant proceedin+s. For all of the" relate to removal  of o!cials in *iolation of laws which prescribe 10ity of term . H3*en assu"in+ for the "o"ent that the act of replacin+ Alaar constitutes re"o*al, the act itself is *alid and lawful, for under section ' of =epu$lic Act /o. G0, no 10ity of tenure has $een pro*ided for, and the pleasure of the (resident has $een eercised in accordance with the policy laid down $y Con+ress therein.
 
nternational Cooperation Ad"inistration. Dille+as returned to the (hilippines in June, 1957. hortly thereafter, he was te"porarily detailed to the Arrastre er*ice *ice 3leazar ;aniin and, in his stead, Ja"es Keefe was desi+nated Actin+ Iirector for ecurity. <hile he was actin+ Arrastre uperintendent, howe*er, Dille+as continued recei*in+ his salary as Iirector for ecurity and, when the salary was increased fro" (,GG to (7,G17.G, he also recei*ed the correspondin+ salary adust"ent. &n January 9, 195', ecretary of Finance Jai"e ernandez proposed to the &!ce of the (resident the per"anent appoint"ent of Dille+as as Arrastre uperintendent, statin+ in his letter that this the proposed appoint"ent2 in*ol*es a chan+e of desi+nation and status fro" Iirector for ecurity which is con#dential in nature to Arrastre uperintendent, a classi#ed position. A few days later, the appoint"ent of Ja"es Keefe to the position of  Iirector for ecurity was liewise proposed. &n January 14, 195', 3ecuti*e ecretary Juan C. (ao ad*ised ecretary ernandez that the (resident had appro*ed the proposed appoint"ents of Dille+as and Keefe. Accordin+ly, Dille+as and KeefeHs appoint"ents, e-ecti*e January 1, 195', were prepared and later si+ned $y ecretary ernandez. As the Court of Appeals o$ser*ed in its decision, n one of  the appoint"ents, defendant Keefe was pro"oted to the position of Iirector for ecurity ... and in the other plainti- was demoted to the ran of arrastre superintendent. 3"phasis supplied2 t appears that Dille+as did not now of his appoint"ent and that of Keefe until Fe$ruary %', 195'. &n this day, he learned that Keefe was $ein+ paid the salary for Iirector for ecurity and, on further in8uiry, found that he had $een appointed Arrastre uperintendent. &n ;arch 0, 195', therefore, he ser*ed notice on Custo"s Co""issioner 3leuterio Capapas that he was resu"in+ the duties and functions of his o!ce as Iirector for ecurity. e also wrote the Auditor )eneral, ecretary ernandez and Co""issioner Capapas, the Bud+et Co""issioner, and the Ci*il er*ice Co""issioner, asin+ the" to disappro*e the pro"otional appoint"ent of Keefe to the post of Iirector for ecurity. Dille+as resorted for 8uo warranto and the ud+"ent was on his fa*or. Iss'e)s& 12 <&/, the o!ce of Iirector for ecurity in the Bureau of Custo"s, is a pri"arily con#dential position (eld)Ratio& /ot necessarily, C said that, we do not need to consider the position in*ol*ed in this case is pri"arily con#dential, $ecause, e*en assu"in+ the position to $e, it is ne*ertheless su$ect to the Constitutional pro*ision that /o o!cer or e"ployee in the Ci*il er*ice shall $e re"o*ed or suspended ecept for cause. (hil. Const., Art. , sec. 42 Dillanue*asH re"o*al, is, therefore, concededly without cause. :hus, only recently, this Court reiterated in Corpus v. Cuaderno,  ).=. /o. 6%07%1, ;arch 01, 195, the *iew that @
L:Mhe Constitutional pro*isions "erely constitute the policydeter"inin+, pri"arily con#dential, and hi+hly technical positions as e0ceptions to the rule re8uirin+ appointments in the Ci*il er*ice to $e "ade on the $asis of merit a 1tness as determined from competitive e0aminations sec. 1, supra2 Jo*er *s. Borra, 49 &.). L/o. 7M %7552, $ut that the Constitution does not ee"pt such positions fro" the operation of the principle e"phatically and cate+orically enu"erated in section 4 of  Article that /o o!cer or e"ployee in the Ci*il er*ice shall $e re"o*ed or suspended ecept for cause as pro*ided $y law. and which reco+nizes no e0ception.
 
speci#cally na"ed the" as an eception to the +eneral rule that all appoint"ents "ust $e "ade on the $asis of "erit and #tness to $e deter"ined $y co"petiti*e ea"inations. inco, (hilippine (olitical 6aw 411 L11th ed. 19%M2 ndeed, in the Corpus  case, this state"ent was held as not controllin+, the rulin+ in the (e los )antos case, where the state"ent appears, $ein+ that a city en+ineer who $elon+s to the unclassi#ed ser*ice is protected $y the security of tenure pro*isions of the Constitution. t is to $e understood of course that o!cials and e"ployees holdin+ pri"arily con#dential positions continue only for so lon+ as con#dence in the" endures. :he ter"ination of their o!cial relation can $e usti#ed on the +round of loss of con#dence $ecause in that case their cessation fro" o!ce in*ol*es no removal $ut "erely the e0piration of the ter" of o!ce two di-erent causes for the ter"ination of o!cial relations reco+nized in the 6aw of (u$lic &!cers. ee, e.+., Corpus *. Cuaderno, supraE Al$a *s. 3*an+elista, 50 &.). 145%E Fernandez *. 6edes"a, ).=. /o. 61''79, ;arch 0G, 190. Contra oilla *. ;arino, ).=. /o. 6%G574, Fe$. %, 195.2 But the point is that as lon+ as con#dence in the" endures and it has $een shown that it has $een lost in this case the incu"$ent is entitled to continue in o!ce. <e therefore hold that Dille+asH re"o*al fro" the o!ce of Iirector for ecurity is without cause and is therefore ille+al.
Retirement
 
to support his re8uest. :his e*idence consisted of photostat copies of the year$oos of the (hilippine nstitute of Accountants in 1954 and 195' wherein his date of $irth is shown as  January 14, 19GG. :his additional e*idence notwithstandin+, on ;arch %1, 19G the 6e+al Counsel reiterated his for"er denial. <hereupon, on ;ay %1, 19G petitioner appealed to the )eneral ;ana+er of the yste" who at that ti"e was ;r. =odolfo Andal. pon fa*ora$le reco""endation of the %nd Assistant )eneral ;ana+er, ;r. F. ). AraNa in a "e"orandu" dated ;ay 0G, 19G, on June %, 19G, ;r. Andal placed &K. at the foot thereof o*er his initials, thus indicatin+ appro*al of the re8uested chan+e. Based on this action of the )eneral ;ana+er, notes of the adust"ent of the date of $irth of  petitioner to January 14, 19GG were sent to the Auditor )eneral and the Co""issioner of  Ci*il er*ice and the proceeds of petitionerHs policy was reco"puted. As e"phasized $y petitioner, in the letter to the (hilippine /ational Ban, it is stated that his date of $irth has $een adusted $y this o!ce, after careful study and deli$eration. &n the other hand, in the %nd indorse"ent to the Ieputy Auditor )eneral, it was "ade clear that relati*e to petitionerHs life insurance policy /o. /%G5 which had "atured on /o*e"$er 0G, 1957, correspondin+ adust"ent or reco"putation of the "aturity *alue had $een e-ected on the $asis of his chan+ed date of $irth. n the "eanti"e, upon application of petitioner, on &cto$er 1, 19G, he was issued a new life policy /o. 00577' indicatin+ his date of $irth as  January 14, 19GG. =e+ardin+ his a$o*e"entioned policy /o. /%G5, on July 7, 19G, de"and was "ade upon petitioner to pay the yste" additionally the su" of (101.G9, due to the adust"ent of his date of $irth, which de"and, petitioner pro"ptly co"plied with. Al"ost three years after ;r. Andal appro*ed the chan+e of petitionerHs date of $irth, "ore speci#cally, on ;ay , 190, ;r. s"ael ;athay, then Auditor of the Central Ban detailed to the (hilippine /ational Ban, wrote the Board of :rustees of the ) a$out the ser*ice of  petitioner and stated that in the course of the audit of the transactions of the (hilippine /ational Ban, it was found that ;r. ilarion Beronilla has $een continuously paid since  January 15, 190, his salary allowances and other frin+e $ene#ts as Auditor of said Ban notwithstandin+ the fact that ;r. Beronilla has attained his sity#fth 5th2 $irthday last  January 14, 190, the date of his auto"atic and co"pulsory retire"ent fro" the +o*ern"ent ser*ice as #ed under =epu$lic Act /o. 0G9 appro*ed June 1, 191. Iss'e)s& <&/, the ) Board of :rustees acted within its powers when it re*ersed the appro*al $y )eneral ;ana+er Andal of petitionerHs re8uest for the chan+e of his date of $irth, tain+ all circu"stances into account includin+ petitionerHs alle+ations of res adudicata, laches, estoppel, denial of due process and unconstitutional i"pair"ent of contractual o$li+ations. (eld)Ratio&  ?es, it acted within its powers. t is clear to s that under the ) charter, the )eneral ;ana+erHs appro*al is not $eyond re*iew and repro$ation $y the Board of :rustees. t "ust $e $orne in "ind that under ection 1 of said charter, the yste" shall $e "ana+ed $y the Board of :rustees ... and ection 17 adds that the Board shall ha*e the followin+ powers and authority@ a2 to adopt $ylaws, rules and re+ulations for the ad"inistration of  the yste" and the transaction of its $usiness. &n the other hand, the etent of the functions and powers of the )eneral ;ana+er are de#ned in ection 1' as follows@
 
 
duty of i"ple"entin+ this policy cannot $e too careful in insurin+ and safe+uardin+ the correctness and inte+rity of the records they prepare and eep. n this case, all that the Board has done is to set aside what it found to $e an erroneous decision of the )eneral ;ana+er in appro*in+ the chan+e of date of petitionerHs $irth, $ecause fro" the e*idence $efore it, the Board was con*inced that the ori+inally recorded date of $irth should not $e distur$ed. <e cannot see where the char+ed ine8uity of such action of the Board could lie. For decades $ac, repeatedly and unifor"ly, petitioner "ade it appear in all "aterial +o*ern"ent and pu$lic records and in all his representations to respondent yste" that his date of $irth is January 14, 1'9'. is rather $elated re8uest for a chan+e of said date to  January 14, 19GG which would un8uestiona$ly fa*or his interests, pecuniarily or otherwise, and correspondin+ly ad*ersely a-ect those of the yste" and, of course, its "e"$ers, was duly in*esti+ated and found not to $e su!ciently +rounded to "erit fa*ora$le action $y the 6e+al Counsel in who" is lod+ed the authority to e*aluate such re8uest. t is to $e noted that, after all, it was always the petitioner who "ade representations to the respondent yste" as to his date of $irth, and not the other way around. All that the yste" did was to tae his representations for what they were worth. e was not $elie*ed $y the 6e+al Counsel, $ut the )eneral ;ana+er didE on the other hand, the authority hi+her than the )eneral ;ana+er found the action of the )eneral ;ana+er erroneous. nder these circu"stances, how could the yste" $e in estoppel where the conOictin+ representations are of the petitioner rather than of the yste"P Finally, as re+ards petitionerHs ar+u"ent that the BoardHs resolution in 8uestion constitutes an i"pair"ent of the o$li+ations of his contract of insurance, it is o$*ious that the constitutional inunction that is e*idently the $asis of such ar+u"ent refers to the le+islature and not to resolutions e*en of +o*ern"ent corporations. Besides, petitionerHs life insurance policy, apart fro" not ha*in+ any real rele*ance in this case, what is in*ol*ed $ein+ his retire"ent, contains speci#c pro*isions conte"platin+ the correction of any error or "istae in the date of $irth of the insured. &n the other hand, the retire"ent of +o*ern"ent e"ployees is i"posed $y law and is not the result of any contractual stipulation.
A0olition of o%e 'sa%a2 v 'enavent'ra, /3 P4il. 1#""
Fa%ts&
 :he plainti- was a duly appointed and 8uali#ed prewar toll collector in the o!ce of the pro*incial treasurer of (an+asinan with station at the Bued toll $rid+e in ison, (an+asinan. is appoint"ent was classi#ed $y the Co""issioner of Ci*il er*ice as per"anent. &n &cto$er 1', 1945, after li$eration, he was reappointed to that position with co"pensation at the rate of (7%G per annu". &n ;arch %1, 194, he resi+ned $ut on April 1 he was reappointed, and had continuously ser*ed up to /o*e"$er of 1947, when the $rid+e was destroyed $y Oood, $y reason of which, he and two other toll collectors were laid o-. (re*iously, fro" July 17 to epte"$er 1G, 194, the $rid+e had $een te"porarily closed to tra!c due to "inor repairs and durin+ that period he and his fellow toll collectors had not $een paid salaries $ecause they had not rendered any ser*ice, $ut upon the reopenin+ of  the $rid+e to tra!c after the repairs, he and his co"panions resu"ed wor without new appoint"ents and continued worin+ until the $rid+e was washed away $y Oood in 1947.
 
is a national toll $rid+e under Act /o. 090%. :he salaries of toll collectors thereon are paid fro" toll collections. n 194', 1949 and 195G, no appropriation was set aside for these salaries, when the $rid+e was $ein+ reha$ilitated. &n epte"$er 15, 195G, the $oard on toll $rid+es appro*ed the Bued ri*er $rid+e as a toll $rid+e, authorized the collection of fees thereon, and prescri$ed correspondin+ rules and re+ulations.
Iss'e)s&
<&/, $y the total destruction of the $rid+e in 1947 the positions of toll collectors pro*ided therefor were a$olished.
(eld)Ratio&
/o. :o consider an o!ce a$olished there "ust ha*e $een an intention to do away with it wholly and per"anently, as the word a$olish denotes. ere there was ne*er any thou+ht, a*owed or apparent, of not re$uildin+ the afore"entioned $rid+e. =ather the contrary was taen for +ranted, so indispensa$le was that $rid+e to span *ital hi+hways in northern 6uzon and to Ba+uio.
 :his $ein+ so, the collapse of said $rid+e did not, in our opinion, wor to destroy $ut only to suspend the plainti-Hs position, and that upon the $rid+eHs reha$ilitation and its reoperation as a toll $rid+e, his ri+ht to the position was si"ilarly and auto"atically restored.
 :his position is te"porary, transitory or precarious only in the sense that its life is co etensi*e with that of the $rid+e as a toll $rid+e. For that "atter, all o!ces created $y statute are "ore or less te"porary, transitory or precarious in that they are su$ect to the power of the le+islature to a$olish the". But this is not sayin+ that the ri+hts of the incu"$ents of such positions "ay $e i"paired while the o!ces eist, ecept for cause.
 :he fact that the destruction of the $rid+e in 8uestion was total, and not partial as in 1945, the len+th of ti"e it too to reconstruct it, and the hypothetical supposition that the new structure could ha*e $een $uilt across another part of the ri*er, are "ere "atters of detail and do not alter the proposition that the positions of toll collector were not eli"inated. <e $elie*e that the cases of prewar o!cers and e"ployees whose e"ploy"ents were not considered forfeited notwithstandin+ the Japanese in*asion and occupation of the (hilippines and who were allowed to reoccupy the" after li$eration without the for"ality of new appoint"ents are pertinent authority for the *iews here epressed
&ur ud+"ent then is that the appellant should $e reinstated to the position he held $efore the destruction of the Bued ri*er $rid+e.
 
Au+ust 4, 19502, held said o!ce, which he assu"ed on July 1, 1950, $y *irtue of a desi+nation "ade, in his fa*or, as Actin+ Co""issioner of the /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice, $y the &!ce of the (resident of the (hilippines. u$se8uently, or on &cto$er %%, 1950, petitioner included, as respondents, 3"iliano ;ora$e, who, on epte"$er 11, 1950, was desi+nated Actin+ co""issioner of /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice, and Sosi"o ). 6inato, the Collectin+, Iis$ursin+ and (roperty &!cer of said /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice hereinafter referred to, for the sae of $re*ity, as the er*ice in order to restrain hi" fro" payin+, to respondent ;ora$e, the salary of the Co""issioner of said er*ice. till later, or on January %1, 1954, ;oha"ad de Denancio, who was desi+nated Actin+ Co""issioner of  said er*ice, and assu"ed said o!ce, on January 11 and 10, respecti*ely, of the sa"e year, was included as respondent. (etitioner, 6uis ;analan+, was Iirector of the (lace"ent Bureau, an o!ce created $y 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 09%, dated Iece"$er 01, 195G 4 &-. )az., /o. 1%, pp. 5910, 59%G 59%12, a*owedly pursuant to the powers *ested in the (resident $y =epu$lic Act /o. 4%%. &n  June %G, 195%, =epu$lic Act /o. 71, entitled An Act to (ro*ide for the &r+anization of a /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice, was appro*ed and $eca"e e-ecti*e. ection 1 thereof partly pro*ides@
. . . n order to ensure the $est possi$le or+anization of the e"ploy"ent "aret as an inte+ral part of the national pro+ra" for the achie*e"ent and "aintenance of  "ai"u" e"ploy"ent and the de*elop"ent and use of producti*e resources there is here$y esta$lished a national syste" of free pu$lic e"ploy"ent o!ces to $e nown as the /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice, hereinafter referred to as the er*ice. the er*ice shall $e under the eecuti*e super*ision and control of the Iepart"ent of  6a$or, and shall ha*e a chief who shall $e nown as the Co""issioner of the /ational e"ploy"ent er*ice hereinafter referred to as Co""issioner. aid Co""issioner shall $e appointed $y the (resident of the (hilippines with the consent of the Co""ission on Appoint"ents and shall recei*e co"pensation at the rate of  nine thousand pesos  per annum. A Ieputy Co""issioner shall $e appointed $y the (resident of the (hilippines with the consent of the Co""ission on Appoint"ents and shall recei*e co"pensation at the rate of se*en thousand two hundred pesos  per  annum.
 
a$olition of his for"er o!ce of Iirector of the (lace"ent Bureau, which, ad"ittedly, is within the power of Con+ress to undertae $y le+islation. t is ar+ued, howe*er, in petitionerHs "e"orandu", that
. . . there is no a$olition $ut only fadin+ away of the title (lace"ent Bureau and all its functions are continued $y the /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice $ecause the two titles cannot coeist. :he see"in+ly additional duties were only $rou+ht a$out $y the additional facilities lie the district o!ces. 3"ploy"ent er*ice Ad*isory Councils, etc.
 :he 8uestion whether or not =epu$lic Act /o. 71 a$olished the (lace"ent Bureau is one of  le+islati*e intent, a$out which there can $e no contro*ersy whatsoe*er, in *iew of the eplicit declaration in the second para+raph of section 1 of said Act readin+@
pon the or+anization of the er*ice, the eistin+ (lace"ent Bureau and the eistin+ 3"ploy"ent &!ce in the Co""ission of ocial <elfare shall be abolished, and all the #les, records, supplies, e8uip"ent, 8uali#ed personnel and unepended $alances of  appropriations of said Bureau and Co""ission pertainin+ to said $ureau or o!ce shall thereupon $e transferred to the er*ice. 3"phasis supplied.2
 
the latter would ha*e $eco"e or+anized si"ultaneously with the appro*al of =epu$lic Act /o. 71, and the sa"e would not ha*e conditioned the afore"entioned transfer upon the or+anization of the er*ice, which connotes that the new o!ce would $e esta$lished at so"e future ti"e. ndeed, in co""on parlance, the word personnel is used +enerally to refer to the su$ordinate o!cials or clerical e"ployees of an o!ce or enterprise, not to the "ana+ers directors or heads thereof. %. f 8uali#ed personnel included the heads of the o!ces a-ected $y the esta$lish"ent of  the er*ice, then it would, also, include the chief of the 3"ploy"ent &!ce in the Co""ission of ocial <elfare, who, followin+ petitionerHs line of ar+u"ent, would, lie petitioner herein, $e, also, a Co""issioner of the /ational 3"ploy"ent er*ice. :he result would $e that we would ha*e either two co""issioners of said er*ice or a Co""ission thereof consistin+ of two persons instead of a Co""issioner and neither alternati*e is countenanced $y =epu$lic Act /o. 71. 0. Con+ress can not either appoint the Co""issioner of the er*ice, or i"pose upon the (resident the duty to appoint any particular person to said o!ce. :he appointin+ power is the eclusi*e prero+ati*e of the (resident, upon which no li"itations "ay $e i"posed $y Con+ress, ecept those resultin+ fro" the need of securin+ the concurrence of the Co""ission on Appoint"ents and fro" the eercise of the li"ited le+islati*e power to prescri$e the 8uali#cations to a +i*en appointi*e o!ce.
 
 
ha*e $een unduly ne+lected in the past. &$ser*e too, that the new positions created in =esolution /o. 7G of the sa"e date as /o. 72 are those of police"en, the duties of which, are entirely di-erent fro" those of appellant. n the circu"stances, we are not prepared to declare that the action of the "unicipal council of Asin+an was an a$use of the power and discretion lod+ed in it $y eistin+ law =odri+uez *. ;ontinola, ).=. /o. 65'9, pro". ;ay 14, 19542. Appellant contends that his re"o*al fro" his position was ille+al $ecause ha*in+ taen the ci*il ser*ice ea"ination re8uired under ection %0 % of =epu$lic Act /o. %%G, nown as the Ci*il er*ice Act of 1959, he could not $e replaced or re"o*ed fro" o!ce, unless the results of said ea"ination shows he failed therein. e also ar+ues that his re"o*al was ille+al, as it was not for cause as pro*ided $y ection 4, Article of the Constitution. But, appellant can not successfully in*oe said pro*isions in his fa*or, $ecause there has $een no re"o*al of  petitioner, $ut in a$olition of his position, which was within the power of the "unicipal council of Asin+an to do.
8r'z v Primi%ias, +" 8RA //
Fa%ts&
Iirect petition for *andamus, with preli"inary inunction, #led $y certain e"ployees of the (ro*ince of (an+asinan, to declare =esolution /o. 5 of the (ro*incial Board and 3ecuti*e &rder /o. % of the (ro*incial )o*ernor null and *oidE to ha*e the a$olition of petitionersH positions declared ille+al, and co"pel their i""ediate reinstate"entE to restrain respondents fro" ecludin+ petitioners fro" the enoy"ent of their ri+hts as ci*il ser*ice e"ployees, and to reco*er attorneysH fees and costs.
t is not disputed that upon election and assu"ption of o!ce in 197 of the respondents (ro*incial )o*ernor and ;e"$ers of the (ro*incial Board, the latter adopted on January 1, 19', =esolution /o. 5 pro*idin+ as follows@
=esolution /o. 5
=3&6D3I $y the (ro*incial Board of (an+asinan, that for the purpose of pro"otin+ si"plicity, econo"y and e!ciency in the operation of the (ro*incial )o*ern"ent and for the purpose of pro*idin+ the necessary epanded ser*ices on a+ricultural etension, rural health, pro*incial pu$lic wors and le+al ser*ices, etc., the (ro*incial )o*ernor is here$y authorized to e-ect $y eecuti*e orders fro" ti"e to ti"e for a period not eceedin+ si 2 "onths fro" the date of appro*al of this resolution, such refor"s and chan+es in the di-erent o!ces and $ranches of the (ro*incial )o*ern"ent as "ay $e necessary, with the power to di"inish, add to or a$olish those eistin+ and create new onesE consolidate related undertain+sE transfer functions, appropriations, e8uip"ents, properties, records and personnel fro" one o!ce or $ranch to anotherE eli"inate duplicated ser*ices or authorize new ones not pro*ided forE classify, co"$ine, split or a$olish positionsE standardize salaries and do whate*er is necessary and desira$le to e-ect econo"y and pro"ote e!ciency of the +o*ern"ent ser*ice and pro*ide necessary ser*ices for the pro"otion of the +eneral social welfare.
 :hat any action taen $y the (ro*incial )o*ernor pursuant to this resolution shall $e i""ediately reported to the (ro*incial Board and shall $e *alid and su$sistin+ until the (ro*incial Board shall pro*ide otherwise.%3vvphi%.n4t 
 
epressly a$olished the di*isions pro*ided for in the Annual Bud+et for the #scal year endin+ on June 0G, 19'
1. 3ecuti*e Ii*ision %. ocio3cono"ic (ro+ra" "ple"entation Ii*ision 0. (olitical A-airs and (lace"ent Ii*ision 4. (u$lic nfor"ation Ii*ision 5. 6e+al Ii*ision
as well as all the positions listed in the current plantilla of personnel of said o!ces, with certain eceptions. At the sa"e ti"e, the 3ecuti*e &rder pars. df2 pro*ided@
d2 :hat there is here$y created, e-ecti*e January 1, 19', a pri*ate and con#dential sta- of the )o*ernor under his i""ediate control and super*ision with such duties and functions as "ay $e assi+ned and prescri$ed $y hi" fro" ti"e to ti"e in the interest of the ser*ice.
 e2 :hat as authorized $y the Iecentralization 6aw, there is here$y created, e-ecti*e  January 1, 19', &ne (ro*incial Attorney under the )o*ernor with an annual salary of  (',4GG.
 f2 :hat there is here$y created a (ersonnel Ii*ision under the &!ce of the )o*ernor with such duties and functions as prescri$ed under =ule D of the Ci*il er*ice =ules in relation to ection %1 of the Ci*il er*ice Act of 1959
(etitioners are (ro*incial Cler eli+i$les, ecept Bancod, who is a +eneral cler eli+i$le. &n or a$out January 11 to 15, 19', they were indi*idually ser*ed notices of ter"ination of their ser*ices and coincidentally, the e8uip"ent used $y said petitioners was taen, transferred and redistri$uted to other retained o!ces.
n their answer #led on Fe$ruary 1%, 19', respondents pleaded that the reor+anization of  the o!ces of the (ro*incial )o*ernor and (ro*incial Board had $een "ade within the powers of the (ro*incial +o*ern"ent, in order to e-ect econo"y in *iew of the pro*inceHs de#cit of  (0.714 "illion pesosE to pro"ote si"plicity and e!ciency, and to pro*ide for "ore essential ser*ices and acti*itiesE that the )o*ernorHs 3ecuti*e &rder /o. % had $een appro*ed and rati#ed $y the (ro*incial Board on January 5, 19', $y its =esolution /o. ', while the supple"ental $ud+et to pro*ide for the newly created positions was rati#ed $y the BoardHs =esolution /o. 5G, of January %, 19'E that the actions thus taen were i""ediately e-ecti*e, without need of the appro*al of the ecretary of FinanceE and that the a$olition and creation of new positions were "ade in +ood faith, the selection of retained e"ployees had $een "ade on the $asis of seniority and #tness as re8uired $y the Ci*il er*ice law, those retained ha*in+ $een appointed earlier than the petitioners. :he answer also ur+ed that the petitioners should ha*e ehausted their ad"inistrati*e re"edies, $y appealin+ to the Co""issioner of Ci*il er*ice.
After this case was ar+ued in open court, one of the petitioners, ;yrna ison, for"erly occupyin+ the position of correspondence cler, "anifested in writin+ that she was no lon+er interested in the case and prayed that she $e ecluded therefro".
Iss'e)s&
 
<&/, the a$olition of the o!ces held $y petitioners is *alid and le+al.
(eld)Ratio&
/o, the a$olition was not *alid and le+al. /o re"o*al or separation of petitioners fro" the ser*ice is here in*ol*ed, $ut the *alidity of the a$olition of their o!ces. :his is a le+al issue that is for the Courts to decide. t is a wellnown rule also that *alid a$olition of o!ces is neither re"o*al nor separation of the incu"$ents ;analan+ *s. Ruitoriano, 94 (hil. 9G0E =odri+uez *s. ;onte"ayor, 94 (hil. 94E Castillo *s. (ao, 1G0 (hil. 5152. And, of course, if  the a$olition is *oid, the incu"$ent is dee"ed ne*er to ha*e ceased to hold o!ce.
As wellsettled as the rule that the a$olition of an o!ce does not a"ount to an ille+al re"o*al of its incu"$ent is the principle that, in order to $e *alid, the a$olition "ust $e "ade in +ood faith. <here the a$olition is "ade in $ad faith, for political or personal reasons, or in order to circu"*ent the constitutional security of tenure of ci*il ser*ice e"ployees, it is null and *oid.
A re*iew of the record herein satis#es us that the usti#cations ad*anced for the a$olition of  petitionersH o!ces econo"y and e!ciency2 are $ut su$terfu+es resorted to for dis+uisin+ an ille+al re"o*al of per"anent ci*il ser*ice e"ployees, in *iolation of the security of tenure +uaranteed $y the Constitution.
 :he clai" of econo"y e-ectuated throu+h the reor+anization is $elied $y the fact that while 7% positions were a$olished, 5G of these were actually *acant. &nly %% stations were occupied at the ti"e of the reor+anization, carryin+ total e"olu"ents of (%5,50'.71 per se"ester, of which (,1%G.GG per se"ester corresponds to the #*e re"ainin+ petitioners Answer, 3h. 0C2. As a+ainst these %% positions suppressed $y the reor+anization 3ecuti*e &rder /o. %2, %' new positions were si"ultaneously created, with a co"pensation of ('7,GG.GG per annu", (40,'GG.GG per se"ester, for con#dential personnel in the o!ce of the )o*ernor 3h. &rder /o. %, par. d2. n addition, a (ro*incial Attorney and his sta- p. %2, and a (ersonnel Ii*ision of #*e "e"$ers, i"portin+ (10,0'G.GG per se"ester were set up. :hus, a+ainst the suppressed ite"s of (%5,50'.71, new ite"s carryin+ a total appropriation of (57,1'G.GG per se"ester or (114,0G.GG annually2 were created, in addition to (',GGG.GG for casual la$orers at the discretion of the )o*ernor. <here the econo"y lies is di!cult to see. i+ni#cantly, this econo"y was the sa"e ecuse ad*anced $y the precedin+ ad"inistration when it atte"pted to eli"inate ci*il ser*ice eli+i$les upon its co"in+ into power &ca"po, et al. *s. Iu8ue, supra2.
As to the alle+ed need for +reater e!ciency, it is well to o$ser*e that no char+e of  ine!ciency is lod+ed a+ainst petitioners herein. :heir e!ciency is attested $y their pro"otional appoint"ents in 197. <hat can not $e +lossed o*er is that respondentHs reor+anization replaced %% ci*il ser*ice eli+i$les with %0 con1dential e"ployees. /o further ela$oration is re8uired to show that in truth and in fact, what respondents sou+ht to achie*e was to supplant ci*il ser*ice eli+i$les with "en of their choice, whose tenure would $e totally dependent upon respondentsH pleasure and discretion. :hus the spirit of the Ci*il er*ice law and of the Constitution are $ein+ purposely circu"*ented.
 :he "oti*es $ehind these wholesale replace"ents are "ade "anifest in para+raph 1G of  respondentsH own Answer, where it is a*erred, in an atte"pt to ustify the new positions created, that@
 
elected Chief 3ecuti*e of the (ro*ince and it could not $e denied that his position is "ore political in nature and as such, it is hu"$ly su$"itted, that he is entitled to a Oei$le co"pact sta- of hi+hly con#dential assistants in who" he has co"plete trust and con#dence not only in their capacity for wor $ut also in their personal #tness and loyalty. :his should $e so $ecause his eecuti*e position is a political one and as elected )o*ernor, he is also the Chair"an of the (ro*incial Co""ittee of the /acionalista (arty to which he $elon+s. n this situation, it could not $e helped that his &!ce should deal with his own party "en on party "atters. /ot only that, as the Chief 3ecuti*e of the (ro*ince, his o!ce has to eep and tae up o!cial secrets of  the +o*ern"ent which should not $e put in dan+er of $ein+ leaed out to third parties, and it is for this reason, a"on+ others, that the respondent )o*ernor should ha*e a Oei$le co"pact sta- of hi+hly con#dential assistants.
ere is proof that the true "oti*ation for reor+anizin+ out the petitioners was not only in2 their capacity for wor $ut also in2 their  personal 1tness and loyalty . (olitical loyalty or disloyalty are not statutory nor constitutional preconditions for appoint"ent or +rounds for separation of eli+i$les in the Ci*il er*ice.
As a conse8uence of this pronounce"ent, it is liewise held, that respondents ha*e unlawfully ecluded the petitioners fro" the enoy"ent of an o!ce to which they are entitledE and that in failin+ or refusin+ to include in the 19'199 $ud+et ite"s re8uired to co*er appropriations for salaries of petitioners, respondents ha*e unlawfully failed or ne+lected the perfor"ance of an act which the law enoins as a duty resultin+ fro" o!ce.
Reor*anization 9ario v Mison, G.R. No. 1/3, A'*'st , 1//
Fa%ts&
&n ;arch %5, 19', (resident Corazon A8uino pro"ul+ated (rocla"ation /o. 0, I3C6A=/) A /A:&/A6 (&6C? :& ;(63;3/: :3 =3F&=; ;A/IA:3I B? :3 (3&(63, (=&:3C:/)  :3= BAC =):, AI&(:/) A (=&D&/A6 C&/:::&/, A/I (=&DI/) F&= A/ &=I3=6? :=A/:&/ :& A )&D3=/;3/: /I3= A /3< C&/:::&/. A"on+ other thin+s, (rocla"ation /o. 0 pro*ided@
3C:&/ 1. ...
 :he (resident shall +i*e priority to "easures to achie*e the "andate of the people to@
a2 Co"pletely reor+anize the +o*ern"ent, eradicate unust and oppressi*e structures, and all ini8uitous *esti+es of the pre*ious re+i"eE
(ursuant thereto, it was also pro*ided@
 
3C:&/ %. All electi*e and appointi*e o!cials and e"ployees under the 1970 Constitution shall continue in o!ce until otherwise pro*ided $y procla"ation or eecuti*e order or upon the appoint"ent and 8uali#cation of their successors, if such is "ade within a period of one year fro" Fe$ruary %5, 19'.
3C:&/ 0. Any pu$lic o!cer or e"ployee separated fro" the ser*ice as a result of  the or+anization e-ected under this (rocla"ation shall, if entitled under the laws then in force, recei*e the retire"ent and other $ene#ts accruin+ thereunder.
3C:&/ 4. :he records, e8uip"ent, $uildin+s, facilities and other properties of all +o*ern"ent o!ces shall $e carefully preser*ed. n case any o!ce or $ody is a$olished or reor+anized pursuant to this (rocla"ation, its F/I and properties shall $e transferred to the o!ce or $ody to which its powers, functions and responsi$ilities su$stantially pertain.
Actually, the reor+anization process started as early as Fe$ruary %5, 19', when the (resident, in her #rst act in o!ce, called upon all appointi*e pu$lic o!cials to su$"it their courtesy resi+nations2 $e+innin+ with the "e"$ers of the upre"e Court. 6ater on, she a$olished the Batasan+ (a"$ansa and the positions of (ri"e ;inister and Ca$inet under the 1970 Constitution.
ince then, the (resident has issued a nu"$er of eecuti*e orders and directi*es reor+anizin+ *arious other +o*ern"ent o!ces, a nu"$er of which, with respect to elected local o!cials, has $een challen+ed in this Court, and two of which, with respect to appointed functionaries, ha*e liewise $een 8uestioned herein.
&n ;ay %', 19', the (resident enacted 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 17, (=3C=B/) =63 A/I =3)6A:&/ F&= :3 ;(63;3/:A:&/ &F 3C:&/ %, A=:C63 &F :3 F=33I&; C&/:::&/. 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 17 reco+nized the unnecessary aniety and de"oralization a"on+ the deser*in+ o!cials and e"ployees the on+oin+ +o*ern"ent reor+anization had +enerated, and prescri$ed as +rounds for the separationQreplace"ent of  personnel,
&n January 0G, 19'7, the (resident pro"ul+ated 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7, =3&=)A/S/)  :3 ;/:=? &F F/A/C3. A"on+ other o!ces, 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7 pro*ided for the reor+anization of the Bureau of Custo"s and prescri$ed a new sta!n+ pattern therefor.
 :hree days later, on Fe$ruary %, 19'7, the Filipino people adopted the new Constitution.
&n January , 19'', incu"$ent Co""issioner of Custo"s al*ador ;ison issued a ;e"orandu", in the nature of )uidelines on the "ple"entation of =eor+anization 3ecuti*e &rders, prescri$in+ the procedure in personnel place"ent. t also pro*ided@
1. By Fe$ruary %', 19'', the e"ployees co*ered $y 3ecuti*e &rder 1%7 and the +race period etended to the Bureau of Custo"s $y the (resident of the (hilippines on reor+anization shall $e@
a2 infor"ed of their reappoint"ent, or
 
c2 infor"ed of their ter"ination.
&n the sa"e date, Co""issioner ;ison constituted a =eor+anization Appeals Board char+ed with adudicatin+ appeals fro" re"o*als under the a$o*e ;e"orandu".
Cesar Iario is the petitioner in ).=. /o. '1954E Dicente Feria, Jr., is the petitioner in ).=. /o. '197E ;essrs. Adolfo Caserano (aci#co 6a+le*a Julian C. 3spiritu, Iennis A. Azarra+a =enato de Jesus, /icasio C. )a"$oa, ;esda"es Corazon =allos /ie*es and Felicitacion =. )eluz ;essrs. 6eode+ario . Floresca, u$aer (acasu" ;s. Senaida 6anaria ;r. Jose B. &rtiz, ;s. )liceria =. Iolar, ;s. Cornelia /apa, (a$lo B. antos, Fer"in =odri+uez, ;s. Iali+ay Bautista, ;essrs. 6eonardo Jose, Al$erto 6onto, (or#rio :a$ino Jose Barredo, =o$erto Arnaldo, ;s. 3ster :an, ;essrs. (edro Baal, =osario Ia*id, =odolfo Afuan+, 6orenzo Catre,, ;s. 6eoncia Catre, and =o$erto A$aca, are the petitioners in ).=. /o. '%G%0E the last %79 indi*iduals "entioned are the pri*ate respondents in ).=. /o. '501G.
;ison posits, clai"s of *iolation of security of tenure are alle+edly no defense. e further states that the deadline prescri$ed $y the (ro*isional Constitution Fe$ruary %5, 19'72 has $een superseded $y the 19'7 Constitution, speci#cally, the transitory pro*isions thereof, 5
which allows a reor+anization thereafter after Fe$ruary %5, 19'72 as this *ery Court has so declared in 5ose v. Arroyo. ;ison su$"its that contrary to the e"ployeesH ar+u"ent, ection 59 of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7 is applica$le in particular, to Iario and Feria in the sense that retention in the Bureau, under the 3ecuti*e &rder, depends on either retention of the position in the new sta!n+ pattern or reappoint"ent of the incu"$ent, and since the dis"issed e"ployees had not $een reappointed, they had $een considered le+ally separated. ;oreo*er, ;ison pro-ers that under ection 59 incu"$ents are considered on holdo*er status, which "eans that all those positions were considered *acant. 57  :he olicitor )eneral denies the applica$ility of Palma67ernande8 v. (e la Pa8 5' $ecause that case supposedly in*ol*ed a "ere transfer and not a separation. e reects, #nally, the force and e-ect of 3ecuti*e &rder /os. 17 and 09 for the reason that 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 17, which was "eant to i"ple"ent the (ro*isional Constitution, had ceased to ha*e force and e-ect upon the rati#cation of the 19'7 Constitution, and that, under 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 09, the dis"issals conte"plated were for cause while the separations now under 8uestion were not for cause and were a result of +o*ern"ent reor+anize or+anization decreed $y 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7. Anent =epu$lic Act /o. 5, he epresses dou$ts on the constitutionality of the +rant of retroacti*ity therein as re+ards the reinforce"ent of security of tenure2 since the new Constitution clearly allows reor+anization after its e-ecti*ity.
Iss'e)s&
<&/, ection 1 of Article D of the 19'7 Constitution is a +rant of a license upon the )o*ern"ent to re"o*e career pu$lic o!cials it could ha*e *alidly done under an auto"atic *acancyauthority and to re"o*e the" without rhy"e or reason <&/, the re"o*als conducted $y Co""issioner ;ison in li+ht of the reor+anization as he clai"ed was *alid > /&2.
(eld)Ratio&
 
t should also $e noted that under the present Constitution, there is a reco+nition, al$eit i"plied, that a +o*ern"ent reor+anization "ay $e le+iti"ately undertaen, su$ect to certain conditions.
1. :he on+oin+ +o*ern"ent reor+anization is in the nature of a pro+ressi*e G
reor+anization i"pelled $y the need to o*erhaul the entire +o*ern"ent $ureaucracy 1
followin+ the people power re*olution of 19'E
%. :here was faithful co"pliance $y the Bureau of the *arious +uidelines issued $y the (resident, in particular, as to deli$eration, and selection of personnel for appoint"ent under the new sta!n+ patternE
0. :he separated e"ployees ha*e $een, under ection 59 of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7, on "ere holdo*er standin+, which "eans that all positions are declared *acantE % 
4.  5ose v. Arroyo has declared the *alidity of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7 under the transitory pro*isions of the 19'7 ConstitutionE
5. =epu$lic Act /o. 5 is of dou$tful constitutionality.
 :he core pro*ision of law in*ol*ed is ection 1 Article D, of the 19'7 Constitution. <e 8uote@
ec. 1. Career ci*il ser*ice e"ployees separated fro" the ser*ice not for cause $ut as a result of the reor+anization pursuant to (rocla"ation /o. 0 dated ;arch %5, 19' and the reor+anization followin+ the rati#cation of this Constitution sha+ $e entitled to appropriate separation pay and to retire"ent and other $ene#ts accruin+ to the" under the laws of +eneral application in force at the ti"e of their separation. n lieu thereof, at the option of the e"ployees, they "ay $e considered for e"ploy"ent in the )o*ern"ent or in any of its su$di*isions, instru"entalities, or a+encies, includin+ +o*ern"entowned or controlled corporations and their su$sidiaries. :his pro*ision also applies to career o!cers whose resi+nation, tendered in line with the eistin+ policy, had $een accepted.
 :he Court considers the a$o*e pro*ision critical for two reasons@ 12 t is the only pro*ision in so far as it "entions re"o*als not for cause that would ar+ua$ly support the challen+ed dis"issals $y "ere notice, and %2 t is the sin+le eistin+ law on reor+anization after the rati#cation of the 19'7 Charter, ecept =epu$lic Act /o. 5, which ca"e "uch later, on June 1G, 19''.
 t is also to $e o$ser*ed that unlie the +rants of power to e-ect reor+anizations under the past Constitutions, the a$o*e pro*ision co"es as a "ere reco+nition of the ri+ht of the )o*ern"ent to reor+anize its o!ces, $ureaus, and instru"entalities. nder ection 4, Article D, of the 1905 Constitution@
 
nder ection 9, Article D, of the 1970 Charter@
ection 9. All o!cials and e"ployees in the eistin+ )o*ern"ent of the =epu$lic of  the (hilippines shall continue in o!ce until otherwise pro*ided $y law or decreed $y the incu"$ent (resident of the (hilippines, $ut all o!cials whose appoint"ents are $y this Constitution *ested in the (ri"e ;inister shall *acate their respecti*e o!ces upon the appoint"ent and 8uali#cation of their successors.  
 :he Freedo" Constitution is, as earlier seen, couched in si"ilar lan+ua+e@
3C:&/ %. All electi*e and appointi*e o!cials and e"ployees under the 1970 Constitution shall continue in o!ce until otherwise pro*ided $y procla"ation or eecuti*e order or upon the appoint"ent and 8uali#cation of their successors, if such is "ade within a period of one year fro" Fe$ruary %5, 19'. 7 
&ther than references to reor+anization followin+ the rati#cation of this Constitution, there is no pro*ision for auto"atic *acancies under the 19'7 Constitution.
n*aria$ly, transition periods are characterized $y pro*isions for auto"atic *acancies. :hey are dictated $y the need to hasten the passa+e fro" the old to the new Constitution free fro" the fetters of due process and security of tenure.
At this point, we "ust distin+uish re"o*als fro" separations arisin+ fro" a$olition of o!ce not $y *irtue of the Constitution2 as a result of reor+anization carried out $y reason of  econo"y or to re"o*e redundancy of functions. n the latter case, the )o*ern"ent is o$li+ed to pro*e +ood faith. n case of re"o*als undertaen to co"ply with clear and eplicit constitutional "andates, the )o*ern"ent is not hard put to pro*e anythin+, plainly and si"ply $ecause the Constitution allows it.
As we ha*e seen, since 1905, transition periods ha*e $een characterized $y pro*isions for auto"atic *acancies. <e tae the silence of the 19'7 Constitution on this "atter as a restraint upon the )o*ern"ent to dis"iss pu$lic ser*ants at a "o"entHs notice.
<hat is, indeed, apparent is the fact that if the present Charter en*isioned an auto"atic *acancy, it should ha*e said so in clearer ter"s, as its 1905, 1970, and 19' counterparts had so stated.
 :he constitutional lapse "eans either one of two thin+s@ 12 :he Constitution "eant to continue the reor+anization under the prior Charter of the =e*olutionary )o*ern"ent2, in the sense that the latter pro*ides for auto"atic *acancies, or %2 t "eant to put a stop to those Hauto"atic *acancies. By itself, howe*er, it is a"$i+uous, referrin+ as it does to two sta+es of reor+anization the #rst, to its confer"ent or authorization under (rocla"ation /o. 0 Freedo" Charter2 and the second, to its i"ple"entation on its e-ecti*ity date Fe$ruary %, 19'72. But as we asserted, if the intent of ection 1 of Article D of the 19'7 Constitution were to etend the e-ects of reor+anization under the Freedo" Constitution, it should ha*e said so in clear ter"s. t is illo+ical why it should tal of two phases of  reor+anization when it could ha*e si"ply acnowled+ed the continuin+ e-ect of the #rst reor+anization.
 
%, 19'7, and 02 the resi+nations of career o!cers tendered in line with the eistin+ policy and which resi+nations ha*e $een accepted. :he phrase not for cause is clearly and pri"arily eclusionary, to eclude those career ci*il ser*ice e"ployees separated for cause. n other words, in order to $e entitled to the $ene#ts +ranted under ection 1 of  Article D of the Constitution of 19'7, two re8uisites, one ne+ati*e and the other positi*e, "ust concur, to wit@
1. the separation "ust not $e for cause, and
%. the separation "ust $e due to any of the three situations "entioned a$o*e.
By its ter"s, the authority to re"o*e pu$lic o!cials under the (ro*isional Constitution ended on Fe$ruary %5, 19'7, ad*anced $y urisprudence to Fe$ruary %, 19'7. 7G t Can only "ean, then, that whate*er reor+anization is tain+ place is upon the authority of the present Charter, and necessarily, upon the "antle of its pro*isions and safe+uards. ence, it can not $e le+iti"ately stated that we are "erely continuin+ what the re*olutionary Constitution of  the =e*olutionary )o*ern"ent had started. <e are throu+h with reor+anization under the Freedo" Constitution the #rst sta+e. <e are on the second sta+e that inferred fro" the pro*isions of ection 1 of Article D of the per"anent $asic docu"ent.
 :his is con#r"ed not only $y the deli$erations of the Constitutional Co""ission, supra, $ut is apparent fro" the CharterHs own words. t also warrants our holdin+ in Esguerra  and Palma67ernande8 , in which we cate+orically declared that after Fe$ruary %, 19'7, incu"$ent o!cials and e"ployees ha*e ac8uired security of tenure, which is not a deterrent a+ainst separation $y reor+anization under the 8uonda" funda"ental law.
Finally, there is the concern of the tate to ensure that this reor+anization is no pur+e lie the eecrated reor+anizations under "artial rule. And, of course, we also ha*e the de"ocratic character of the Charter itself.
<hat "ust $e understood, howe*er, is that notwithstandin+ her i""ense re*olutionary powers, the (resident was, ne*ertheless, "a+nani"ous in her rule. :his is apparent fro" 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 17, which esta$lished safe+uards a+ainst the stron+ ar" and ruthless propensity that acco"panies reor+anizations notwithstandin+ the fact that re"o*als arisin+ therefro" were not for cause, and in spite of the fact that such re"o*als would ha*e $een *alid and un8uestiona$le. Iespite that, the Chief 3ecuti*e saw, as we said, the unnecessary aniety and de"oralization in the +o*ern"ent ran and #le that reor+anization was causin+, and prescri$ed +uidelines for personnel action. peci#cally, she said on ;ay %', 19'@
<3=3A, in order to o$*iate unnecessary aniety and de"oralization a"on+ the deser*in+ o!cials and e"ployees, particularly in the career ci*il ser*ice, it is necessary to prescri$e the rules and re+ulations for i"ple"entin+ the said constitutional pro*ision to protect career ci*il ser*ants whose 8uali#cations and perfor"ance "eet the standards of ser*ice de"anded $y the /ew )o*ern"ent, and to ensure that only those found corrupt, ine!cient and undeser*in+ are separated fro" the +o*ern"ent ser*iceE 71 
/oteworthy is the inunction e"$odied in the 3ecuti*e &rder that dis"issals should $e "ade on the $asis of #ndin+s of ine!ciency, +raft, and un#tness to render pu$lic ser*ice. : 
 
8uote, in part@
Further to the ;e"orandu" dated &cto$er %, 19'7 on the sa"e su$ect, ha*e ordered that there will $e no further layo-s this year of personnel as a result of the +o*ern"ent reor+anization. 7% 
Assu"in+, then, that this reor+anization allows re"o*als not for cause in a "anner that would ha*e $een per"issi$le in a re*olutionary settin+ as Co""issioner ;ison so purports, it would see" that the Co""issioner would ha*e $een powerless, in any e*ent, to order dis"issals at the Custo"s Bureau left and ri+ht. ence, e*en if we accepted his pro+ressi*e reor+anization theory, he would still ha*e to co"e to ter"s with the Chief  3ecuti*eHs su$se8uent directi*es "oderatin+ the re*olutionary authorityHs plenary power to separate +o*ern"ent o!cials and e"ployees.
/eorgani8ation under the %-+ Constitution, $ature, E0tent, and imitations of9 5ose v.  Arroyo, clari1ed. :
 :he transitory pro*isions of the 19'7 Constitution allude to two sta+es of the reor+anization, the #rst sta+e $ein+ the reor+anization under (rocla"ation /o. 0 which had already $een consu""ated the second sta+e $ein+ that ad*erted to in the transitory pro*isions the"sel*es which is underway. ence, when we spoe, in  Arroyo, of reor+anization after the e-ecti*ity of the new Constitution, we referred to the second sta+e of the reor+anization. Accordin+ly, we cannot $e said to ha*e carried o*er reor+anization under the Freedo" Constitution to its 19'7 counterpart.
As we ha*e de"onstrated, reor+anization under the ae+is of the 19'7 Constitution is not as stern as reor+anization under the prior Charter. <hereas the latter, sans the (residentHs su$se8uently i"posed constraints, en*isioned a pur+ation, the sa"e cannot $e said of the reor+anization inferred under the new Constitution $ecause, precisely, the new Constitution sees to usher in a de"ocratic re+i"e. But e*en if we concede e0 gratia argumenti  that ection 1 is an eception to due process and nore"o*alecept for cause pro*ided $y law principles enshrined in the *ery sa"e 19'7 Constitution, 79 which "ay possi$ly ustify re"o*als not for cause, there is no contradiction in ter"s here $ecause, while the for"er Constitution left the ae to fall where it "i+ht, the present or+anic act re8uires that re"o*als not for cause "ust $e as a result of reor+anization. As we o$ser*ed, the Constitution does not pro*ide for auto"atic *acancies. t "ust also pass the test of +ood faith a test not o$*iously re8uired under the re*olutionary +o*ern"ent for"erly pre*ailin+, $ut a test wellesta$lished in de"ocratic societies and in this +o*ern"ent under a de"ocratic Charter.
=eor+anizations in this urisdiction ha*e $een re+arded as *alid pro*ided they are pursued in +ood faith. As a +eneral rule, a reor+anization is carried out in +ood faith if it is for the purpose of econo"y or to "ae $ureaucracy "ore e!cient. n that e*ent, no dis"issal in case of a dis"issal2 or separation actually occurs $ecause the position itself ceases to eist. And in that case, security of tenure would not $e a Chinese wall. Be that as it "ay, if the a$olition, which is nothin+ else $ut a separation or re"o*al, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat sty of tenure, or otherwise not in +ood faith, no *alid a$olitionH taes place and whate*er a$olitionH is done, is *oid ab initio. :here is an in*alid a$olition as where there is "erely a chan+e of no"enclature of positions, or where clai"s of econo"y are $elied $y the eistence of a"ple funds.
 
are not, as a conse8uence, i"posin+ a cause for restructurin+. =etrench"ent in the course of a reor+anization in +ood faith is still re"o*al not for cause, if $y cause we refer to +rounds or conditions that call for disciplinary action.;; 
)ood faith, as a co"ponent of a reor+anization under a constitutional re+i"e, is ud+ed fro" the facts of each case. owe*er, under =epu$lic Act /o. 5, we are told@
3C. %. /o o!cer or e"ployee in the career ser*ice shall $e re"o*ed ecept for a *alid cause and after due notice and hearin+. A *alid cause for re"o*al eists when, pursuant to a bona 1de reor+anization, a position has $een a$olished or rendered redundant or there is a need to "er+e, di*ide, or consolidate positions in order to "eet the ei+encies of the ser*ice, or other lawful causes allowed $y the Ci*il er*ice 6aw. :he eistence of any or so"e of the followin+ circu"stances "ay $e considered as e*idence of $ad faith in the re"o*als "ade as a result of reor+anization, +i*in+ rise to a clai" for reinstate"ent or reappoint"ent $y an a++rie*ed party@ a2 <here there is a si+ni#cant increase in the nu"$er of positions in the new sta!n+ pattern of  the depart"ent or a+ency concernedE $2 <here an o!ce is a$olished and another perfor"in+ su$stantially the sa"e functions is createdE c2 <here incu"$ents are replaced $y those less 8uali#ed in ter"s of status of appoint"ent, perfor"ance and "eritE d2 <here there is a reclassi#cation of o!ces in the depart"ent or a+ency concerned and the reclassi#ed o!ces perfor" su$stantially the sa"e functions as the ori+inal o!cesE e2 <here the re"o*al *iolates the order of separation pro*ided in ection 0 hereof.
t is in li+ht hereof that we tae up 8uestions a$out Co""issioner ;isonHs +ood faith, or lac of it.
/eorgani8ation of the <ureau of Customs, ac= of #ood 7aith in. :
 :he Court #nds that after Fe$ruary %, 19'7 no percepti$le restructurin+ of the Custo"s hierarchy ecept for the chan+e of personnel has occurred, which would ha*e usti#ed an thin+s $ein+ e8ual2 the contested dis"isses. :he contention that the sta!n+ pattern at the Bureau which would ha*e furnished a usti#cation for a personnel "o*e"ent2 is the sa"e s pattern prescri$ed $y ection 04 of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7 already pre*ailin+ when Co""issioner ;ison too o*er the Custo"s hel", has not $een successfully contradicted  :here is no showin+ that le+iti"ate structural chan+es ha*e $een "ade or a reor+anization actually undertaen, for that "atter at the Bureau since Co""issioner ;ison assu"ed o!ce, which would ha*e *alidly pro"pted hi" to hire and #re e"ployees.  :here can therefore $e no actual reor+anization to spea of, in the sense, say, of reduction of personnel, consolidation of o!ces, or a$olition thereof $y reason of econo"y or redundancy of functions, $ut a re*a"p of personnel pure and si"ple.
 :he records indeed show that Co""issioner ;ison separated a$out 094 Custo"s personnel $ut replaced the" with 5%% as of Au+ust 1', 19''. :his $etrays a clear intent to pac the Bureau of Custo"s. e did so, further"ore, in de#ance of the (residentHs directi*e to halt further layo-s as a conse8uence of reor+anization. Finally, he was aware that layo-s should o$ser*e the procedure laid down $y 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 17.
 
E0ecutive "rder $o. %', )peci1c Case of. :
<ith respect to 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7, Co""issioner ;ison su$"its that under ection 59 thereof, LtMhose incu"$ents whose positions are not included therein or who are not reappointed shall $e dee"ed separated fro" the ser*ice. e su$"its that $ecause the 094 re"o*ed personnel ha*e not $een reappointed, they are considered ter"inated. :o $e+in with, the Co""issionerHs appointin+ power is su$ect to the pro*isions of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 09. nder 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 09, the Co""issioner of Custo"s "ay appoint all Bureau personnel, ecept those appointed $y the (resident.
Accordin+ly, with respect to Ieputy Co""issioners Cesar Iario and Dicente Feria, Jr., Co""issioner ;ison could not ha*e *alidly ter"inated the", they $ein+ (residential appointees.
econdly, and as we ha*e asserted, ection 59 has $een rendered inoperati*e accordin+ to our holdin+ in Palma67ernande8.  
 :hat Custo"s e"ployees, under ection 59 of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1%7 had $een on a "ere holdo*er status cannot "ean that the positions held $y the" had $eco"e *acant. n Palma6 7ernande8 , we said in no uncertain ter"s@
 :he ar+u"ent that, on the $asis of this pro*ision, petitionerHs ter" of o!ce ended on 0G January 19'7 and that she continued in the perfor"ance of her duties "erely in a hold o*er capacity and could $e transferred to another position without *iolatin+ any of her le+al ri+hts, is untena$le. :he occupancy of a position in a holdo*er capacity was concei*ed to facilitate reor+anization and would ha*e lapsed on %5 Fe$ruary 19'7 under the (ro*isional Constitution2, $ut ad*anced to Fe$ruary %, 19'7 when the 19'7 Constitution $eca"e e-ecti*e Ie 6eon. et al., *s. on. Bena"in B. 3s8uerra, et. al., ).=. /o. 7'G59, 01 Au+ust 19'72. After the said date the pro*isions of the latter on security of tenure +o*ern. 9G 
t should $e seen, #nally, that we are not $arrin+ Co""issioner ;ison fro" carryin+ out a reor+anization under the transitory pro*isions of the 19'7 Constitution. But such a reor+anization should $e su$ect to the criterion of +ood faith.
/esume. :
n resu"e, we restate as follows@
 
0. Fro" Fe$ruary %, 19'7, the tate does not lose the ri+ht to reor+anize the )o*ern"ent resultin+ in the separation of career ci*il ser*ice e"ployees LC&/:. 19'72, supraM pro*ided, that such a reor+anization is "ade in +ood faith. =ep. Act /o. 5, supra.2
#./. $o. +!!
 :his disposition also resol*es ).=. /o. '0707. As we ha*e indicated, ).=. /o. '0707 is a challen+e to the *alidity of =epu$lic Act /o. 5. n $rief, it is ar+ued that the Act, insofar as it stren+thens security of tenure 91 and as far as it pro*ides for a retroacti*e e-ect, 9% runs counter to the transitory pro*isions of the new Constitution on re"o*als not for cause.
t can $e seen that the Act, insofar as it pro*ides for reinstata"ent of e"ployees separated without a *alid cause and after due notice and hearin+ is not contrary to the transitory pro*isions of the new Constitution. :he Court reiterates that althou+h the CharterHs transitory pro*isions "ention separations not for cause, separations thereunder "ust ne*ertheless $e on account of a *alid reor+anization and which do not co"e a$out auto"atically. &therwise, security of tenure "ay $e in*oed. ;oreo*er, it can $e seen that the statute itself reco+nizes re"o*als without cause. owe*er, it also acnowled+es the possi$ility of the leadership usin+ the arti#ce of reor+anization to frustrate security of  tenure. For this reason, it has installed safe+uards. :here is nothin+ unconstitutional a$out the Act.
 
 
 
 
 
 usti#a$ly so, that the three depart"ents are as one in their deter"ination to pursue the deals and aspirations and to ful#llin+ the hopes of the so*erei+n people as epressed in the Constitution. :here is wisdo" as well as *alidity to this pronounce"ent of Justice ;alcol" in *anila Electric Co. v. Pasay @ransportation Company , a decision pro"ul+ated al"ost half a century a+o@ Just as the upre"e Court, as the +uardian of constitutional ri+hts, should not sanction usurpations $y any other depart"ent or the +o*ern"ent, so should it as strictly con#ne its own sphere of inOuence to the powers epressly or $y i"plication conferred on it $y the &r+anic Act. :o that $asic postulate underlyin+ our constitutional syste", this Court re"ains co""itted.
e%tion 11, Arti%le VIII, 1/! 8onstit'tion&  :he ;e"$ers of the upre"e Court and ud+es of the lower court shall hold o!ce durin+ +ood $eha*ior until they reach the a+e of se*enty years or $eco"e incapacitated to dischar+e the duties of their o!ce. :he upre"e Court en $anc shall ha*e the power to discipline ud+es of lower courts, or order their dis"issal $y a *ote of "aority of the ;e"$ers who actually too part in the deli$erations on the issues in the case and *oted in thereon.
irao*o v Tr't4 8ommission, G.R. No. 1/+/", < 1/"#"$ 9e%em0er !, +#1#
Fa%ts&
Birao+o assails 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1 for $ein+ *iolati*e of the le+islati*e power of Con+ress under ection 1, Article D of the Constitution as it usurps the constitutional authority of the le+islature to create a pu$lic o!ce and to appropriate funds therefor.
   :o transfor" his ca"pai+n slo+an into reality, (resident A8uino found a need for a special $ody to in*esti+ate reported cases of +raft and corruption alle+edly co""itted durin+ the pre*ious ad"inistration.
 :hus, at the dawn of his ad"inistration, the (resident on July 0G, %G1G, si+ned 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1 esta$lishin+ the Philippine @ruth Commission of '% B@ruth Commission2. 
Nature of the Truth Commission  
 :he (hilippine :ruth Co""ission BP@C2 is a "ere ad hoc $ody for"ed under the &!ce of the (resident with the pri"ary tas to in*esti+ate reports of +raft and corruption co""itted $y thirdle*el pu$lic o!cers and e"ployees, their coprincipals, acco"plices and accessories durin+ the pre*ious ad"inistration, and thereafter to su$"it its #ndin+ and reco""endations to the (resident, Con+ress and the &"$uds"an. :hou+h it has $een descri$ed as an Tindependent colle+ial $ody,U it is essentially an entity within the &!ce of  the (resident (roper and su$ect to his control. Iou$tless, it constitutes a pu$lic o!ce, as an ad hoc $ody is one.
 
ad"inistrati*e penalties or sanctions.
 :he (:C is di-erent fro" the truth co""issions in other countries which ha*e $een created as o!cial, transitory and nonudicial fact#ndin+ $odies Tto esta$lish the facts and contet of serious *iolations of hu"an ri+hts or of international hu"anitarian law in a countryVs past.U :hey are usually esta$lished $y states e"er+in+ fro" periods of internal unrest, ci*il strife or authoritarianis" to ser*e as "echanis"s for transitional ustice.
 :ruth co""issions ha*e $een descri$ed as $odies that share the followin+ characteristics@ 12 they ea"ine only past e*entsE %2 they in*esti+ate patterns of a$use co""itted o*er a period of ti"e, as opposed to a particular e*entE 02 they are te"porary $odies that #nish their wor with the su$"ission of a report containin+ conclusions and reco""endationsE and 42 they are o!cially sanctioned, authorized or e"powered $y the tate. TCo""issionVs "e"$ers are usually e"powered to conduct research, support *icti"s, and propose policy reco""endations to pre*ent recurrence of cri"es. :hrou+h their in*esti+ations, the co""issions "ay ai" to disco*er and learn "ore a$out past a$uses, or for"ally acnowled+e the". :hey "ay ai" to prepare the way for prosecutions and reco""end institutional refor"s.U
   :he (:C is a far cry fro" outh AfricaVs "odel. :he latter placed "ore e"phasis on reconciliation than on udicial retri$ution, while the "archin+ order of the (:C is the identi#cation and punish"ent of perpetrators.
Iss'e)s&  a2 <&/, :he pro*ision of Boo , Chapter 1G, ection 01 of the Ad"inistrati*e Code of 19'7 cannot le+iti"ize 3.&. /o. 1 $ecause the dele+ated authority of the (resident to structurally reor+anize the &!ce of the (resident to achie*e econo"y, si"plicity and e!ciency does not include the power to create an entirely new pu$lic o!ce which was hitherto ineistent lie the T:ruth Co""ission.U
$2 <&/, 3.&. /o. 1 *iolates the separation of powers as it arro+ates the power of the Con+ress to create a pu$lic o!ce and appropriate funds for its operation.
  (eld)Ratio&
Power of the President to Create the Truth Commission   Ioes the creation of the (:C fall within the a"$it of the power to reor+anize as epressed in ection 01 of the =e*ised Ad"inistrati*e CodeP ection 01 conte"plates Treor+anizationU as li"ited $y the followin+ functional and structural lines@ 12 restructurin+ the internal or+anization of the &!ce of the (resident (roper $y a$olishin+, consolidatin+ or "er+in+ units thereof or transferrin+ functions fro" one unit to anotherE %2 transferrin+ any function under the &!ce of the (resident to any other Iepart"entQA+ency or *ice *ersaE or 02 transferrin+ any a+ency under the &!ce of the (resident to any other Iepart"entQA+ency or *ice *ersa. Clearly, the pro*ision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of o!ces, or a$olition thereof $y reason of econo"y or redundancy of functions. :hese point to situations where a $ody or an o!ce is already eistent $ut a "odi#cation or alteration thereof has to $e e-ected. :he creation of an o!ce is nowhere "entioned, "uch less en*isioned in said pro*ision. Accordin+ly, the answer to the 8uestion is in the ne+ati*e.
 
structure.U 3*idently, the (:C was not part of the structure of the &!ce of the (resident prior to the enact"ent of 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1. As held in <u=lod ng awaning EDD< v. on. E0ecutive )ecretary, 
But of course, the list of le+al $asis authorizin+ the (resident to reor+anize any depart"ent or a+ency in the eecuti*e $ranch does not ha*e to end here. <e "ust not lose si+ht of the *ery source of the power > that which constitutes an epress +rant of power. nder ection 01, Boo of  3ecuti*e &rder /o. %9% otherwise nown as the Ad"inistrati*e Code of  19'72, the (resident, su$ect to the policy in the 3ecuti*e &!ce and in order to achie*e si"plicity, econo"y and e!ciency, shall ha*e the continuin+ authority to reor+anize the ad"inistrati*e structure of the &!ce of the (resident. For this purpose, he "ay transfer the functions of other Iepart"ents or A+encies to the &!ce of the (resident. Dn Canoni8ado v.  Aguirre  L0%0 C=A 01% %GGG2M, we ruled that reor+anization in*ol*es the reduction of personnel, consolidation of o!ces, or a$olition thereof $y reason of econo"y or redundancy of functions. It ta=es 6la%e >4en t4ere is an alteration of t4e e?istin* str'%t're of *overnment o%es or 'nits t4erein, in%l'din* t4e lines of %ontrol, a't4orit2 and res6onsi0ilit2 0et>een t4em. :he 3B is a $ureau attached to the Iepart"ent of Finance. t falls under the &!ce of the (resident. ence, it is su$ect to the (residentVs continuin+ authority to reor+anize. L3"phasis uppliedM  
n the sa"e *ein, the creation of the (:C is not usti#ed $y the (residentVs power of control. Control is essentially the power to alter or "odify or nullify or set aside what a su$ordinate o!cer had done in the perfor"ance of his duties and to su$stitute the ud+"ent of the for"er with that of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely di-erent fro" the power to create pu$lic o!ces. :he for"er is inherent in the 3ecuti*e, while the latter #nds $asis fro" either a *alid dele+ation fro" Con+ress, or his inherent duty to faithfully eecute the laws.
 :he 8uestion is this, is there a *alid dele+ation of power fro" Con+ress, e"powerin+ the (resident to create a pu$lic o!ceP
   :he Court, howe*er, declines to reco+nize (.I. /o. 141 as a usti#cation for the (resident to create a pu$lic o!ce. aid decree is already stale, anachronistic and inopera$le. (.I. /o. 141 was a dele+ation to then (resident ;arcos of the authority to reor+anize the ad"inistrati*e structure of the national +o*ern"ent includin+ the power to create o!ces and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the purposes of the decree.
 
 
 
&6C:&= )3/3=A6 CAIS@ ?es, ?our onor.   A&CA:3 J:C3 CA=(&@ :hat is why, that (.I. 141 was issued.
/ow would you a+ree with "e that (.I. 141 should not $e considered e-ecti*e any"ore upon the pro"ul+ation, adoption, rati#cation of the 19'7 Constitution.
  &6C:&= )3/3=A6 CAIS@ /ot the whole of (.I. L/o.M 141, ?our
onor.   A&CA:3 J:C3 CA=(&@ :he power of the (resident to reor+anize
the entire /ational )o*ern"ent is dee"ed repealed, at least, upon the adoption of the 19'7 Constitution, correct.
  &6C:&= )3/3=A6 CAIS@ ?es, ?our onor.  
<hile the power to create a truth co""ission cannot pass "uster on the $asis of (.I. /o. 141 as a"ended $y (.I. /o. 177%, the creation of the (:C #nds usti#cation under ection 17, Article D of the Constitution, i"posin+ upon the (resident the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully eecuted. ection 17 reads@  
ection 17. :he (resident shall ha*e control of all the eecuti*e depart"ents, $ureaus, and o!ces. (e s4all ens're t4at t4e la>s 0e fait4f'll2 e?e%'ted. 3"phasis supplied2.
  As correctly pointed out $y the respondents, the allocation of power in the three principal $ranches of +o*ern"ent is a +rant of all powers inherent in the". :he (residentVs power to conduct in*esti+ations to aid hi" in ensurin+ the faithful eecution of laws > in this case, funda"ental laws on pu$lic accounta$ility and transparency > is inherent in the (residentVs powers as the Chief 3ecuti*e. :hat the authority of the (resident to conduct in*esti+ations and to create $odies to eecute this power is not eplicitly "entioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not "ean that he is $ereft of such authority.
  . :he 19'7 Constitution, howe*er, $rou+ht $ac the presidential
syste" of +o*ern"ent and restored the separation of le+islati*e, eecuti*e and udicial powers $y their actual distri$ution a"on+ three distinct $ranches of +o*ern"ent with pro*ision for checs and $alances.
  t would not $e accurate, howe*er, to state that eecuti*e power is
 
 
(resident, it "aintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of eecuti*e power. Corollarily, the powers of the (resident cannot $e said to $e li"ited only to the speci#c powers enu"erated in the Constitution. n other words, eecuti*e power is "ore than the su" of speci#c powers so enu"erated.
  t has $een ad*anced that whate*er power inherent in the +o*ern"ent
that is neither le+islati*e nor udicial has to $e eecuti*e. .  
ndeed, the 3ecuti*e is +i*en "uch leeway in ensurin+ that our laws are faithfully eecuted. As stated a$o*e, the powers of the (resident are not li"ited to those speci#c powers under the Constitution. &ne of the reco+nized powers of the (resident +ranted pursuant to this constitutionally"andated duty is the power to create ad hoc co""ittees. :his Oows fro" the o$*ious need to ascertain facts and deter"ine if laws ha*e $een faithfully eecuted. n a case,  
T4e 84ief E?e%'tives 6o>er to %reate t4e  Ad hoc Investi*atin* 8ommittee %annot 0e do'0ted. a*in+ $een constitutionally +ranted full control of the 3ecuti*e Iepart"ent, to which respondents $elon+, the (resident has the o$li+ation to ensure that all eecuti*e o!cials and e"ployees faithfully co"ply with the law. <ith A& %9' as "andate, the le+ality of the in*esti+ation is sustained. uch *alidity is not a-ected $y the fact that the in*esti+atin+ tea" and the (CA)C had the sa"e co"position, or that the for"er used the o!ces and facilities of the latter in conductin+ the in8uiry. L3"phasis suppliedM
  t should $e stressed that the purpose of allowin+ ad hoc in*esti+atin+ $odies to eist is to allow an in8uiry into "atters which the (resident is entitled to now so that he can $e properly ad*ised and +uided in the perfor"ance of his duties relati*e to the eecution and enforce"ent of the laws of the land. And if history is to $e re*isited, this was also the o$ecti*e of the in*esti+ati*e $odies created in the past lie the (CAC, (CA(3, (A=)&, the Feliciano Co""ission, the ;elo Co""ission and the Senarosa Co""ission. :here $ein+ no chan+es in the +o*ern"ent structure, the Court is not inclined to declare such eecuti*e power as noneistent ust $ecause the direction of the political winds ha*e chan+ed.
  $2 /o > on the char+e that 3ecuti*e &rder /o. 1 trans+resses the power of Con+ress to appropriate funds for the operation of a pu$lic o!ce, su!ce it to say that there will $e no appropriation $ut only an allot"ent or allocations of eistin+ funds already appropriated. Accordin+ly, there is no usurpation on the part of the 3ecuti*e of the power of Con+ress to appropriate funds. Further, there is no need to specify the a"ount to $e ear"ared for the operation of the co""ission $ecause, in the words of the olicitor )eneral, Twhate*er funds the Con+ress has pro*ided for the &!ce of the (resident will $e the *ery source of the funds for the co""ission.U ;oreo*er, since the a"ount that would $e allocated to the (:C shall $e su$ect to eistin+ auditin+ rules and re+ulations, there is no i"propriety in the fundin+.
 
n*oin+ this authority, the (resident constituted the (:C to pri"arily in*esti+ate reports of  +raft and corruption and to reco""end the appropriate action. As pre*iously stated, no 8uasiudicial powers ha*e $een *ested in the said $ody as it cannot adudicate ri+hts of  persons who co"e $efore it. t has $een said that TRuasiudicial powers in*ol*e the power to hear and deter"ine 8uestions of fact to which the le+islati*e policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down $y law itself in enforcin+ and ad"inisterin+ the sa"e law.U n si"pler ter"s, udicial discretion is in*ol*ed in the eercise of these 8uasiudicial power, such that it is eclusi*ely *ested in the udiciary and "ust $e clearly authorized $y the le+islature in the case of ad"inistrati*e a+encies.    :he distinction $etween the power to in*esti+ate and the power to adudicate was delineated $y the Court in CariFo v. Commission on uman /ights.:hus@  
GDnvestigate,G co""only understood, "eans to ea"ine, eplore, in8uire or del*e or pro$e into, research on, study. :he dictionary de#nition of  in*esti+ate is to o$ser*e or study closely@ in8uire into syste"atically@ to search or in8uire into@ to su$ect to an o!cial pro$e @ to conduct an o!cial in8uiry. :he purpose of in*esti+ation, of course, is to disco*er, to #nd out, to learn, o$tain infor"ation. /owhere included or inti"ated is the notion of settlin+, decidin+ or resol*in+ a contro*ersy in*ol*ed in the facts in8uired into $y application of the law to the facts esta$lished $y the in8uiry.
   :he le+al "eanin+ of in*esti+ate is essentially the sa"e@ t2o follow
up step $y step $y patient in8uiry or o$ser*ation. :o trace or tracE to search intoE to ea"ine and in8uire into with care and accuracyE to #nd out $y careful in8uisitionE ea"inationE the tain+ of e*idenceE a le+al in8uiryE to in8uireE to "ae an in*esti+ation, in*esti+ation $ein+ in turn descri$ed as a2n ad"inistrati*e function, the eercise of which ordinarily does not re8uire a hearin+. % A" J%d Ad" 6 ec. %57E an in8uiry, udicial or otherwise, for the disco*ery and collection of facts concernin+ a certain "atter or "atters.
  GAdjudicate,G co""only or popularly understood, "eans to adud+e,
ar$itrate, ud+e, decide, deter"ine, resol*e, rule on, settle. :he dictionary de#nes the ter" as to settle #nally the ri+hts and duties of the parties to a court case2 on the "erits of issues raised@ to pass ud+"ent on@ settle  udicially@ act as ud+e. And adud+e "eans to decide or rule upon as a  ud+e or with udicial or 8uasiudicial powers@ to award or +rant udicially in a case of contro*ersy .
n the le+al sense, adudi