Abakada VS Purisima

ABAKADA v.
PURISIMA | 15
EN BANC
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST v. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA
[G.R. No. 166715. August 14, 2008.]
CORONA, J
TOPIC: LEGISLATIVE POWER
FACTS:
 RA 9335 or Attrition Act of 2005 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation
capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. The law intends to encourage their
officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of
rewards and sanctions through the creation of Rewards and Incentives Fund and
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.
 The Boards in the BIR and BOC to be composed by their respective Commissioners,
DOF, DBM, and NEDA, were tasked to prescribe the rules and guidelines for the
allocation, distribution and release of the fund, to set criteria and procedures for
removing service officials and employees whose revenue collection fall short of the
target; and further, to issue rules and regulations.
 Also, the law tasked the DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the CSC to promulgate
and issue the IRR of RA 9335, subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee created solely for the purpose of approving the formulated
IRR. Later, the JCOO having approved a formulated IRR by the agencies, JCOO
became functus officio and ceased to exist.
 Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers, filed this petition challenging the
constitutionality of RA 9335 and sought to prevent herein respondents from
implementing and enforcing said law.
 Petitioners assail, among others, the creation of a congressional oversight
committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers, as it
permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law,
when legislative function should have been deemed accomplished and completed
upon the enactment of the law.
 Respondents, through the OSG, counter this by asserting that the creation of the
congressional oversight committee under the law enhances rather than violates
separation of powers, as it ensures the fulfillment of the legislative policy.
ISSUE:
Whether the creation of the congressional oversight committee violates the
doctrine of separation of powers under the Constitution
RULING:
YES. The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee in RA 9335 having approved
the IRR formulated by the DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC on May 22, 2006, it
became functus officio and ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged
encroachment on the executive function of implementing and enforcing the law may be
considered moot and academic.
This notwithstanding, this might be as good a time as any for the Court to
confront the issue of the constitutionality of the Joint Congressional.
Congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither

necessarily constitutes an encroachment on the executive power to implement laws nor
undermines the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral to the checks
and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It may in fact even
enhance the separation of powers as it prevents the over-accumulation of power
in the executive branch.
ABAKADA v. PURISIMA | 15
However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment “beyond the

legislative sphere,” the Constitution imposes two basic and related constraints on
Congress. It may not vest itself, any of its committees or its members with either
executive or judicial power. And, when it exercises its legislative power, it must follow
the “single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedures” specified under the
Constitution, including the procedure for enactment of laws and presentment. Thus, any
post-enactment congressional measure such as this should be limited to scrutiny and
investigation.
In particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:

1) Scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of appropriation and the budget
hearings conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to
appear before and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their
departments and its power of confirmation and
2) Investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers
guaranteed by the Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this class.
“Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an
administrative agency to present the proposed implementing rules and
regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through a committee formed
by it, retains a “right” or “power” to approve or disapprove such regulations
before they take effect.”
As such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is

in the form of an inward-turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash
(other than through scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to which Congress has by
law initially delegated broad powers. It radically changes the design or structure of the
Constitution‘s diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing,
applying or implementing its own laws.
Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and

interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are
entitled to respect. Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not
pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing
the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. In exercising
discretion to approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not
they conformed with the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto
itself, a power exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution.
From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers
Congress or any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement
of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.
Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its members to approve the
implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional, as
is a provision that allows Congress or its members to overturn any directive or ruling
made by the members of the executive branch charged with the implementation of the
law.
CONCLUSION:
Wherefore, the petition is hereby partially granted. Section 12 of RA 9335
creating a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to approve the implementing rules
and regulations of the law is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NULL and
VOID. The constitutionality of the remaining provisions of RA 9335 is upheld.

Abakada VS Purisima

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abakada VS Purisima

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abakada VS Purisima

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABAKADA v.

TOPIC: LEGISLATIVE POWER

Congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither

However, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment “beyond the

In particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:

As such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is

Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and

You might also like