[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
76 views1 page

Atty. Sylvia Banda VS Eduardo R. Ermita GR NO. 166620, APRIL 20, 2010 Facts

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 378 issued by President Arroyo which amended EO No. 285 and removed the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Printing Office over printing services for government agencies. The petitioners claimed this threatened their job security. The Supreme Court ruled the case was not a valid class suit as the requirements for a class suit were not met. The Court also ruled the President has the power to amend or repeal previous executive orders through new executive orders based on the President's power to reorganize the executive branch.

Uploaded by

VIRILITER AGITE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views1 page

Atty. Sylvia Banda VS Eduardo R. Ermita GR NO. 166620, APRIL 20, 2010 Facts

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 378 issued by President Arroyo which amended EO No. 285 and removed the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Printing Office over printing services for government agencies. The petitioners claimed this threatened their job security. The Supreme Court ruled the case was not a valid class suit as the requirements for a class suit were not met. The Court also ruled the President has the power to amend or repeal previous executive orders through new executive orders based on the President's power to reorganize the executive branch.

Uploaded by

VIRILITER AGITE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Atty. Sylvia Banda VS Eduardo R.

Ermita

GR NO. 166620, APRIL 20, 2010

Facts:

The petitioners filed this action as a class suit on their own behalf and on behalf of all their co-
employees at the National Printing Office. They challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order
No. 378 issued by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo which amended Sec. 6 of Executive Order
No. 285, removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing services requirements
of government agencies and instrumentalities. They perceive it as a threat to their security of tenure
as employees of the NPO contending that it is beyong the executive powers of Pres. Arroyo to
amend or repeal EO No. 285 issued by former Pres. Aquino when the latter still exercised
legislative powers and that EO No. 378 violates petioners’ security of tenure because it paves the
way for the gradual abolition of the NPO.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition is indeed qualified as a class suit.

Whether or not Pres. Arroyo can amend or repeal EO No. 285 by the mere issuance of another
executive order.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that an action does not become a class suit merely because it is
designated as such in the pleadings. Under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, When the
subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so
numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may
sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect
his individual interest. From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class suit are: 1) the subject
matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; 2) the parties affected
are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and 3) the parties bringing the
class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests
of all concerned.

Pursuant to Section 20, Chapter 7, Title I, Book III of the same Code, the power of the President
to reorganize the Executive Branch under Section 31 includes such powers and functions that may
be provided for under other laws. To be sure, an inclusive and broad interpretation of the
President’s power to reorganize executive offices has been consistently supported by specific
provisions in general appropriations laws.

You might also like