Scribd
Upload
726 views

Galicto vs. Aquino

1) Executive Order 7 issued by President Aquino placed a moratorium on salary increases and suspended allowances for board members of GOCCs and GFIs to control excessive compensation. 2) Employee Jelbert Galicto claimed EO7 was unconstitutional and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari was an improper remedy, as the issuance of an executive order is not a judicial, quasi-judicial, or mandatory act. Instead, a petition for declaratory relief should be filed with the regional trial court to question the validity of EO7.

Uploaded by

Marian Chavez
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
726 views

Galicto vs. Aquino

1) Executive Order 7 issued by President Aquino placed a moratorium on salary increases and suspended allowances for board members of GOCCs and GFIs to control excessive compensation. 2) Employee Jelbert Galicto claimed EO7 was unconstitutional and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that certiorari was an improper remedy, as the issuance of an executive order is not a judicial, quasi-judicial, or mandatory act. Instead, a petition for declaratory relief should be filed with the regional trial court to question the validity of EO7.

Uploaded by

Marian Chavez
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

JELBERT B. GALICTO, PETITIONER, VS. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III G.R. No.

193978 February 28, 2012 EN BANC; BRION, J.: FACTS: On September 8, 2010, issued EO 7, which provided for the guiding principles and framework to establish a fixed compensation and position classification system for GOCCs and GFIs. EO 7 ordered (1) a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of compensation, except salary adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900, of all GOCC and GFI employees for an indefinite period to be set by the President, and (2) a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of members of the Board of Directors/Trustees until December 31, 2010. Jelbert Galicto claims that as a PhilHealth employee, he is affected by the implementation of EO 7, which was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as it is null and void for lack of legal basis. He asserts that EO7 is unconstitutional for having been issued beyond the powers of the President. It is contended, however, that the President exercises control over the governing boards of the GOCCs and GFIs; thus, he can fix their compensation packages in order to control the grant of excessive salaries, allowances, incentives, etc. Hence, he filed this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to nullify and enjoin the implementation of EO7. ISSUE: Was certiorari a proper remedy? HELD: No. Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts. Since the issuance of an EO is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohibition is an incorrect remedy; instead a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, filed with the RTC, is the proper recourse to assail the validity of EO 7: Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. (Emphases ours.)

You might also like