This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the chief executive dwell the powers to run government. Placed upon him is the power to recommend the budget necessary for the operation of the Government,[16] which implies that he has the necessary authority to evaluate and determine the structure that each government agency in the executive department would need to operate in the most economical and efficient manner.[17] Hence, the express recognition under Section 78 of R.A. 9970 or the General Appropriations Act of 2010 of the President's authority to "direct changes in the organizational units or key positions in any department or agency." The aforecited provision, often and consistently included in the general appropriations laws, recognizes the extent of the President's power to reorganize the executive offices and agencies under him, which is, "even to the extent of modifying and realigning appropriations for that purpose."[18] | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by the OSG, Biraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any personal and direct injury attributable to the implementation of Executive Order No. 1. Nowhere in his petition is an assertion of a clear right that may justify his clamor for the Court to exercise judicial power and to wield the axe over presidential issuances in defense of the Constitution. The case of David v. Arroyo[24] explained the deep-seated rules on locus standi. Thus: Locus standi is defined as "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question." In private suits, standing is governed by the "real-parties-in interest" rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest." Accordingly, the "real-party-in interest" is "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Succinctly put, the plaintiff's standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. | |||||
|
2010-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For consideration before the Court are two consolidated cases[5] both of which essentially assail the validity and constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, entitled "Creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010." | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It may be well to remind LBP's counsel that the Court En Banc is not an appellate tribunal to which appeals from a Division of the Court may be taken. A Division of the Court is the Supreme Court as fully and veritably as the Court En Banc itself, and a decision of its Division is as authoritative and final as a decision of the Court En Banc. Referrals of cases from a Division to the Court En Banc do not take place as just a matter of routine but only on such specified grounds as the Court in its discretion may allow.[31] | |||||
|
2007-08-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising and enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.[25] (Italics omitted, underscoring supplied) The Constitution's express grant of the power of control in the President justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law.[26] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has already ruled in a number of cases that the President may, by executive or administrative order, direct the reorganization of government entities under the Executive Department.[29] This is also sanctioned under the Constitution, as well as other statutes. | |||||