SUBJECTS Locus standi1

Chief Executive2
Categories of administrative relationships3
CASE NO./DATE G.R. No. 166052; August 29, 2007
CASE TITLE Anak Mindanao Party-List Group, as represented by Rep. Mujiv S.
Hataman and MAMALO Descendants Organization, Inc., as represented
by its Chairman Romy Pardi v The Executive Secretary, Hon. Eduardo
Ermita and the Secretary of Agrarian/Land Reform, Hon. Rene C. Villa
PONENTE Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales

FACTS
1. Petitioners Anak Mindanao Party-list Group (AMIN) and Mamalo Descendants Organization,
Inc. (MDOI) assail the constitutionality of E.O. Nos. 364 and 379, 4 both issued in 2004, via the
present Petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for injunctive relief.
2. By resolution, this Court gave due course to the Petition and required submission of
memoranda. The issue on the transformation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
into the Department of Land Reform (DLR) became moot and academic, however, the
department having reverted to its former name by virtue of EO 456 which was issued on
August 23, 2005.
3. Petitioners find it impermissible for the Executive to intrude into the domain of the
Legislature. AMIN has the locus standi as member of the House of Representative to
maintain inviolate the prerogatives, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his
office. While MDOI is concerned with the negative impact of NCIP becoming an attached
agency of the DAR on the processing of ancestral domain claims.
4. AMIN contended that since the DAR, PCUP, and NCIP were created by statutes, they can only
be transformed, merged by statutes and not by mere executive orders. Reorganizations of
these administrative agencies should be the subject of a statute.
5. The Court is thus left with the sole issue of the legality of placing the Presidential
Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) under the supervision and control of the DAR, and
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under the DAR as an attached
agency.

ISSUE 1 Whether or not the power of control over executive departments, bureaus and
offices are conferred in the President alone.

RULING Yes, the power of control over executive departments, bureaus and offices are
conferred in the President alone.

1
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
2
Holds the power of control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices, it posits that this
broad power of control including the power to reorganize is qualified and limited, for it cannot be exercised in a
manner contrary to law, citing the constitutional duty of the President to ensure that the laws, including those
creating the agencies, be faithfully executed.
3
The Administrative Code of 1987 categorizes administrative relationships into (1) supervision and
control, (2) administrative supervision, and (3) attachment. With respect to the third category, it has been held
that an attached agency has a larger measure of independence from the Department to which it is attached than
one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative supervision. The attachment is merely
for "policy and program coordination."
4
Transforming the Department of Agrarian Reform into the Department of Land Reform (EO 364);
Amending Executive Order No.364 entitled Transforming the Department of Agrarian Reform into the
Department of Land Reform (EO 379).
 Under the Constitution, the executive power is vested in the President. He has
control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. 5 The express grant
in the provisions justifies an executive action to carry out reorganization
measures under a broad authority of law.

It is not disputed that PCUP and NCIP were formed as agencies under the Office
of the President. The "Agencies under the Office of the President" refer to those
offices placed under the chairmanship of the President, those under the
supervision and control of the President, those under the administrative
supervision of the Office of the President, those attached to the Office for policy
and program coordination, and those that are not placed by law or order
creating them under any special department. As thus provided by law, the
President may transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other
department or agency, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order
to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency. Gauged against these
guidelines, the challenged executive orders may not be said to have been issued
with grave abuse of discretion or in violation of the rule of law.

Thus, the power of control over executive departments, bureaus and offices are
conferred in the President alone.

ISSUE 2 Whether or not NCIP, being afforded with quasi-judicial functions, is still
subject to the president’s power of control and supervision.

RULING Yes, NCIP, being afforded with quasi-judicial functions, is still subject to the
president’s power of control and supervision.

Under Section 30 of the Administrative Code of 1987, agencies under the Office
of the President shall continue to operate and function in accordance with their
respective charters or laws creating them, except as otherwise provided in this
Code or by law.

Congress did not intend to place the NCIP under the control of the President in
all instances is evident in the IPRA itself, which provides that the decisions of the
NCIP in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions shall be appealable to the
Court of Appeals, like those of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Nevertheless, the
NCIP, although independent to a certain degree, was placed by Congress "under
the office of the President" and, as such, is still subject to the President’s power
5
Administrative Code of 1987:
SEC. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office.– The President, subject to the
policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing
authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this purpose, he may take
any of the following actions:
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the
immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Staff Support
System, by abolishing, consolidating, or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to
another;
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency
as well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies; and
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as
well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other departments or agencies.31 (Italics in
the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
 of control and supervision granted under Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution with respect to its performance of administrative functions. In
transferring the NCIP to the DAR as an attached agency, the President effectively
tempered the exercise of presidential authority and considerably recognized that
degree of independence.

ISSUE 3 Whether or not both E.O. Nos. 364 and 379 are unconstitutional.

RULING No, both Executive Order Nos. 364 and 379 are not unconstitutional.

Under the principles of law, a law has in its favour the presumption of
constitutionality.

For a law it to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution. The ground for nullity must be clear and beyond
reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt should, following the universal rule of
legal hermeneutics, be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law.

In the present case, AMIN glaringly failed to show how the reorganization by
executive fiat would hamper the exercise of citizen’s rights and privileges. It
rested on the ambiguous conclusion that the reorganization jeopardizes
economic, social and cultural rights. It intimated, without expounding, that the
agendum behind the issuances is to weaken the indigenous peoples’ rights in
favor of the mining industry. And it raised concerns about the possible
retrogression in DAR’s performance as the added workload may impede the
implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program. AMIN has not
shown, however, that by placing the NCIP as an attached agency of the DAR, the
President altered the nature and dynamics of the jurisdiction and adjudicatory
functions of the NCIP concerning all claims and disputes involving rights of
indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples. Nor has it been
shown, nay alleged, that the reorganization was made in bad faith.

Therefore, both Executive Order Nos. 364 and 379 are not unconstitutional.