This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy. A public office is created either by the Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that brought it into existence.[72] | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A valid reorganization must not only be exercised through legitimate authority but must also be pursued in good faith. A reorganization is said to be carried out in good faith if it is done for purposes of economy and efficiency.[13] It appears in this case that the streamlining of functions within the Office of the President Proper was pursued with such purposes in mind. In its Whereas clauses, E.O. 13 cites as bases for the reorganization the policy dictates of eradicating corruption in the government and promoting economy and efficiency in the bureaucracy. Indeed, the economical effects of the reorganization is shown by the fact that while Congress had initially appropriated P22 Million for the PAGC's operation in the 2010 annual budget,[14] no separate or added funding of such a considerable amount was ever required after the transfer of the PAGC functions to the IAD-ODESLA. | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The OSG attacks the legal personality of the petitioners-legislators to file their petition for failure to demonstrate their personal stake in the outcome of the case. It argues that the petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the PTC. Not claiming to be the subject of the commission's investigations, petitioners will not sustain injury in its creation or as a result of its proceedings.[20] | |||||