Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 214 views

    Digest Blaquera V Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Jeanine
    This document summarizes a court case between Blaquerra vs Alcala regarding Administrative Orders (AO) 29 and 268 issued by the President that limited productivity incentive benefits for government employees. The petitioners argued that the AOs violated Executive Order 292 and the authority of the Civil Service Commission. The court dismissed the petitions and ruled that the President was validly exercising presidential control over executive departments by issuing the AOs to regulate and limit the incentive benefits. The court found the AOs did not encroach on the authority of the Civil Service Commission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Blaquera V Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Jeanine
    214 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Blaquerra vs Alcala regarding Administrative Orders (AO) 29 and 268 issued by the President that limited productivity incentive benefits for government employees. The petitioners argued that the AOs violated Executive Order 292 and the authority of the Civil Service Commission. The court dismissed the petitions and ruled that the President was validly exercising presidential control over executive departments by issuing the AOs to regulate and limit the incentive benefits. The court found the AOs did not encroach on the authority of the Civil Service Commission.

    Original Description:

    Digest of Blaquera v Alcala under Executive Control

    Original Title

    Digest Blaquera v Alcala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Blaquerra vs Alcala regarding Administrative Orders (AO) 29 and 268 issued by the President that limited productivity incentive benefits for government employees. The petitioners argued that the AOs violated Executive Order 292 and the authority of the Civil Service Commission. The court dismissed the petitions and ruled that the President was validly exercising presidential control over executive departments by issuing the AOs to regulate and limit the incentive benefits. The court found the AOs did not encroach on the authority of the Civil Service Commission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    214 views2 pages

    Digest Blaquera V Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Jeanine
    This document summarizes a court case between Blaquerra vs Alcala regarding Administrative Orders (AO) 29 and 268 issued by the President that limited productivity incentive benefits for government employees. The petitioners argued that the AOs violated Executive Order 292 and the authority of the Civil Service Commission. The court dismissed the petitions and ruled that the President was validly exercising presidential control over executive departments by issuing the AOs to regulate and limit the incentive benefits. The court found the AOs did not encroach on the authority of the Civil Service Commission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    BLAQUERA VS ALCALA

    Theory of the petitioner


    Petitioners theorize that AO 29 and AO 268 violate EO 292 and since the latter is a law, it
    prevails over executive issuances. Petitioners likewise assert that AO 29 and AO 268
    encroach upon the constitutional authority of the Civil Service Commission to adopt
    measures to strengthen the merit and rewards system and to promulgate rules, regulations
    and standards governing the incentive awards system of the civil service.
    AO 29 AND AO 268 ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF EO 292 AND, HENCE, NULL AND
    VOID.
    II.
    AO 29 AND AO 268 UNLAWFULLY USURP THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
    GRANTED SOLELY TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
    III.
    THE FORCED REFUND OF INCENTIVE PAY IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT
    OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
    IV.
    ASSUMING, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY, THAT THE GRANT OF
    PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVE BENEFITS WAS INVALID, THE SAME SHOULD BE THE PERSONAL
    LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9
    OF AO 268.
    Issued by the then President Corazon Aquino ("President Aquino") on July 25, 1987 in the
    exercise of her legislative powers under the 1987 Constitution, EO 292, or the Administrative
    Code of 1987, provided for the following incentive award system:
    "Sec. 31. Career and Personnel Development Plans. Each department or agency shall
    prepare a career and personnel development plan which shall be integrated into a national
    plan by the Commission. Such career and personnel development plans which shall include
    provisions on merit promotions, performance evaluation, in-service training, including
    overseas and local scholarships and training grants, job rotation, suggestions and incentive
    award systems, and such other provisions for employees' health, welfare, counseling,
    recreation and similar services.
    Sec. 35. Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System. There shall be established a
    government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system which shall be
    administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as maybe promulgated by the
    Commission.

    similar nature for Calendar Year 1992 and future years pending the result of a comprehensive
    study being undertaken by the Office of the President in coordination with the Civil Service
    Commission and the Department of Budget and Management on the matter.
    On January 19, 1993, President Ramos issued AO 29 which granted productivity incentive
    benefits to government employees in the maximum amount of P1,000.00 for the calendar
    year 1992 but reiterated the proscription under Section 7 of AO 268, thus:
    "SEC. 2. The prohibition prescribed under Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 268 is
    hereby reiterated. Accordingly, all heads of government offices/agencies, including
    government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as well as their respective governing
    boards are hereby enjoined and prohibited from authorizing/granting Productivity Incentive
    Benefits or any and all similar forms of allowances/benefits without prior approval and
    authorization via Administrative Order by the Office of the President. Henceforth, anyone
    found violating any of the mandates in this Order, including all officials/employees and the
    COA Auditor-in-Charge of such government office/agency found to have taken part thereof,
    shall be accordingly and severely dealt with in accordance with the applicable provisions of
    existing penal laws.
    Ruling
    The Court is not impressed with petitioners' submission. AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in
    the valid exercise of presidential control over the executive departments.
    The President is the head of the government. Governmental power and authority are
    exercised and implemented through him. His power includes the control over executive
    departments
    "The president shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
    shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." (Section 17, Article VII, 1987 Constitution)
    Control means "the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate
    officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
    former for that of the latter
    When the President issued AO 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits, enjoining heads
    of government agencies from granting incentive benefits without prior approval from him,
    and directing the refund of the excess over the prescribed amount, the President was just
    exercising his power of control over executive departments. This is decisively clear from the
    WHEREAS CLAUSES of AO 268 and AO 29

    On February 21, 1992, President Aquino issued AO 268 which granted "each official and
    employee of the government the productivity incentive benefits in a maximum amount
    equivalent to thirty percent (30%) of his one (1) month basic salary but in no case shall such
    amount be less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00)," 29 for those who have rendered at
    least one year of service as of December 31, 1991. 30 Said AO carried the prohibition,
    provided in Section 7 thereof, which reads:

    The President's duty to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too, is his control of all
    executive departments. Thus it is, that department heads are men of his confidence. His is
    the power to appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Naturally,
    he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or
    reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.

    "SEC. 7. The productivity incentive benefits herein authorized shall be granted only for
    Calendar Year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including the governing boards of
    government-owned or -controlled corporations and financial institutions, are hereby strictly
    prohibited from authorizing/granting productivity incentive benefits or other allowances of

    Neither can it be said that the President encroached upon the authority of the Commission
    on Civil Service to grant benefits to government personnel. AO 29 and AO 268 did not revoke
    the privilege of employees to receive incentive benefits. The same merely regulated the
    grant and amount thereof.

    "Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control.


    DECISION
    WHEREFORE, the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, and 112056 are hereby
    DISMISSED, and as above ratiocinated, further deductions from the salaries and allowances
    of petitioners are hereby ENJOINED.
    In G.R. No. 119597, the assailed Decision of respondent Commission on Audit is AFFIRMED.
    No pronouncement as to costs.

    You might also like