"x x x.
THE Supreme Court has dismissed a petition questioning the constitutionality of President Benigno Aquino III’s Executive Order 7, which bars the release of bonuses and allowances to the board of directors of government-owned-and-controlled-corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions.
In a 19-page en banc resolution penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the Court unanimously ruled to dismiss the petition filed by lawyer Jelbert Galicto, an employee of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth), seeking to declare null and void the moratorium on the increase in salary, incentives and other forms of compensation of all GOCCs and GFI employees.
EO 7, which took effect September 25, 2010, provided the framework for a fixed compensation and position classification for GOCCs and GFIs. It likewise created a Task Force to review all remunerations of GOCC and GFI officers and employees and ordered a moratorium on the increases in their salaries.
The SC ruled that any discussion on the constitutionality of EO 7 is “moot on its face” in light of the enactment of Republic Act 10149, or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011, which amended the provisions in the charters of the GOCCs and GFIs empowering their boards of directors/trustees to determine their own compensation system and instead expressly authorizing the President to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and GFIs.
With its mootness, the Court ruled that there is no longer any actual controversy between adverse parties.
“For the Court to still rule upon the supposed unconstitutionality of EO 7 will merely be an academic exercise. Any further discussion on its constitutionality serves no useful purpose. All told, in view of the supervening events rendering the petition moot, as well as its patent formal and procedural infirmities, we no longer see any reason for the Court to resolve the other issues raised in the petition,” the Court said.
As the issuance of EO 7 was not a judicial, quasi-judicial, or mandatory act, the SC said the proper remedy is not a petition for certiorari and prohibition but one of declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court.
The High Court also said that petitioner lacked locus standi or a personal and substantial interest such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of EO 7’s implementation. It said that Galicto “has no vested right to salary increases and therefore, the absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal standing to assail EO 7.”
The SC said the petitioner cannot be considered to have filed his petition as a PhilHealth representative as he failed to present a Board Resolution or Secretary’s Certificate from PhilHealth authorizing him as such.
In his separate opinion, Chief Justice Renato Corona claimed that Section 56 of the General Provisions of RA 10147 acknowledges the President’s power to approve or disapprove "any grant of or increase in salaries, allowances, and other fringe benefits with respect to all RA 6758-exempt GOCCs and GFIs."
"There is nothing there which limits or constricts the power of the President as Chief Executive to prescribe such policies, parameters and guidelines which in his discretion would best serve public interest by regulating the compensation and position classification system of these entities," said Corona.
Without any showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President, Corona said the Court must recognize in the President, as Chief Executive, the power and duty to protect and promote public interest through rationalization of the compensation and position classification system in executive departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies including GOCCs and GFIs. (JCV/Sunnex)
x x x."
