Republic of the Philippines provided for five general areas of reform: (1) to provide fiscal

SUPREME COURT autonomy to government hospitals; (2) secure funding for

Manila priority public health programs; (3) promote the development
of local health systems and ensure its effective performance;
EN BANC (4) strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies; and
(5) expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance
G.R. No. 167324               July 17, 2007 Program (NHIP).2

TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioners questioned the first reform agenda involving the
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR TROPICAL MEDICINE EMPLOYEES fiscal autonomy of government hospitals, particularly the
ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ORTHOPEDIC WORKERS UNION, DR. collection of socialized user fees and the corporate
JOSE R. REYES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION, SAN restructuring of government hospitals. The said provision under
LAZARO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ALLIANCE OF the HSRA reads:
HEALTH WORKERS, INC., HEALTH ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY,
COUNCIL FOR HEALTH DEVELOPMENT, NETWORK OPPOSED Provide fiscal autonomy to government hospitals. Government
TO PRIVATIZATION, COMMUNITY MEDICINE DEVELOPMENT hospitals must be allowed to collect socialized user fees so they
FOUNDATION INC., PHILIPPINE SOCIETY OF SANITARY can reduce the dependence on direct subsidies from the
ENGINEERS INC., KILUSANG MAYO UNO, GABRIELA, KILUSANG government. Their critical capacities like diagnostic equipment,
MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYAN NG laboratory facilities and medical staff capability must be
MGA MARALITA, ELSA O. GUEVARRA, ARCADIO B. GONZALES, upgraded to effectively exercise fiscal autonomy. Such
JOSE G. GALANG, DOMINGO P. MANAY, TITO P. ESTEVES, investment must be cognizant of complimentary capacity
EDUARDO P. GALOPE, REMEDIOS M. YSMAEL, ALFREDO provided by public-private networks. Moreover such capacities
BACUÑATA, EDGARDO J. DAMICOG, REMEDIOS M. MALTU will allow government hospitals to supplement priority public
AND REMEGIO S. MERCADO, Petitioners,  health programs. Appropriate institutional arrangement must
vs. be introduced such as allowing them autonomy towards
THE COURT OF APPEALS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. converting them into government corporations without
ROMULO, SECRETARY OF HEALTH MANUEL M. DAYRIT, compromising their social responsibilities. As a result,
SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT EMILIA T. government hospitals are expected to be more competitive and
BONCODIN, Respondents. responsive to health needs.

DECISION Petitioners also assailed the issuance of a draft administrative

order issued by the DOH, dated 5 January 2001, entitled
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: "Guidelines and Procedure in the Implementation of the
Corporate Restructuring of Selected DOH Hospitals to Achieve
Fiscal Autonomy, and Managerial Flexibility to Start by January
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the
2001;"3 and Administrative Order No. 172 of the DOH, entitled
Rules of Court, assailing the Decision, 1 promulgated by the
"Policies and Guidelines on the Private Practice of Medical and
Court of Appeals on 26 November 2004, denying a petition for
Paramedical Professionals in Government Health
the nullification of the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA)
Facilities,"4 dated 9 January 2001, for imposing an added
Philippines 1999-2004 of the Department of Health (DOH); and
burden to indigent Filipinos, who cannot afford to pay for
Executive Order No. 102, "Redirecting the Functions and
medicine and medical services.5
Operations of the Department of Health," which was issued by
then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada on 24 May 1999.
Petitioners alleged that the implementation of the
aforementioned reforms had resulted in making free medicine
Prior hereto, petitioners originally filed a Petition for Certiorari,
and free medical services inaccessible to economically
Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised
disadvantaged Filipinos. Thus, they alleged that the HSRA is
Rules of Civil Procedure before the Supreme Court on 15
void for being in violation of the following constitutional
August 2001. However, the Supreme Court, in a Resolution
provisions:6
dated 29 August 2001, referred the petition to the Court of
Appeals for appropriate action.
ART. III, SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
HEALTH SECTOR REFORM AGENDA (HSRA)
denied the equal protection of the law.
In 1999, the DOH launched the HSRA, a reform agenda
ART II, SEC. 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the
developed by the HSRA Technical Working Group after a series
protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of
of workshops and analyses with inputs from several
the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment of all the
consultants, program managers and technical staff possessing
people of the blessings of democracy.
the adequate expertise and experience in the health sector. It
ART II, SEC. 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social On 24 May 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued
order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the Executive Order No. 102, entitled "Redirecting the Functions
nation and free the people from poverty through policies that and Operations of the Department of Health," which provided
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a for the changes in the roles, functions, and organizational
rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. processes of the DOH. Under the assailed executive order, the
DOH refocused its mandate from being the sole provider of
ART II, SEC. 10. The State shall promote social justice in all health services to being a provider of specific health services
phases of national development. and technical assistance, as a result of the devolution of basic
services to local government units. The provisions for the
ART II, SEC. 11. The State values the dignity of every human streamlining of the DOH and the deployment of DOH personnel
person and guarantees full respect for human rights. to regional offices and hospitals read:

ART II, SEC. 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth Sec. 4. Preparation of a Rationalization and Streamlining Plan.
in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, In view of the functional and operational redirection in the
moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being x x x. DOH, and to effect efficiency and effectiveness in its activities,
the Department shall prepare a Rationalization and
Streamlining Plan (RSP) which shall be the basis of the intended
ART II, SEC. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social
changes. The RSP shall contain the following:
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
a) the specific shift in policy directions, functions, programs and
activities/strategies;
ART XV, SEC. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total development. b) the structural and organizational shift, stating the specific
functions and activities by organizational unit and the
relationship of each units;
ART XV, SEC. 3. The State shall defend:

c) the staffing shift, highlighting and itemizing the existing filled

xxxx
and unfilled positions; and
(2) the right of children to assistance, including proper care and
d) the resource allocation shift, specifying the effects of the
nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect,
streamline set-up on the agency budgetary allocation and
abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to
indicating where possible, savings have been generated.
their development.

The RSP shall [be] submitted to the Department of Budget and

xxxx
Management for approval before the corresponding shifts shall
be affected (sic) by the DOH Secretary.
ART XIII, SEC. 14. The State shall protect working women by
providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into
Sec. 5. Redeployment of Personnel. The redeployment of
account their maternal functions, and such facilities and
officials and other personnel on the basis of the approved RSP
opportunities that will enhance their welfare and enable them
shall not result in diminution in rank and compensation of
to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
existing personnel. It shall take into account all pertinent Civil
Service laws and rules.
ART II, SEC. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to
health of the people and instill health consciousness among
Section 6. Funding. The financial resources needed to
them.
implement the Rationalization and Streamlining Plan shall be
taken from funds available in the DOH, provided that the total
ART XIII, SEC. 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and requirements for the implementation of the revised staffing
comprehensive approach to health development which shall pattern shall not exceed available funds for Personnel Services.
endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social
services available to all people at affordable cost. There shall be
Section 7. Separation Benefits. Personnel who opt to be
priority for the needs of the underprivileged sick, elderly,
separated from the service as a consequence of the
disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to
implementation of this Executive Order shall be entitled to the
provide free medical care to paupers.
benefits under existing laws. In the case of those who are not
covered by existing laws, they shall be entitled to separation
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 102 benefits equivalent to one month basic salary for every year of
service or proportionate share thereof in addition to the
terminal fee benefits to which he/she is entitled under existing were implemented in 2000; and 4) certiorari, Prohibition and
laws. Mandamus will not lie where the President, in issuing the
assailed Executive Order, was not acting as a tribunal, board or
Executive Order No. 102 was enacted pursuant to Section 17 of officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), which
provided for the devolution to the local government units of In resolving the substantial issues of the case, the Court of
basic services and facilities, as well as specific health-related Appeals ruled that the HSRA cannot be declared void for
functions and responsibilities.7 violating Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II; Section 1
of Article III; Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII; and Sections 1
Petitioners contended that a law, such as Executive Order No. and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the 1987 Constitution, which
102, which effects the reorganization of the DOH, should be directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of the State to protect
enacted by Congress in the exercise of its legislative function. and promote the people’s right to health and well-being. It
They argued that Executive Order No. 102 is void, having been reasoned that the aforementioned provisions of the
issued in excess of the President’s authority. 8 Constitution are not self-executing; they are not judicially
enforceable constitutional rights and can only provide
Moreover, petitioners averred that the implementation of the guidelines for legislation.
Rationalization and Streamlining Plan (RSP) was not in
accordance with law. The RSP was allegedly implemented even Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioners’
before the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) assertion that Executive Order No. 102 is detrimental to the
approved it. They also maintained that the Office of the health of the people cannot be made a justiciable issue. The
President should have issued an administrative order to carry question of whether the HSRA will bring about the
out the streamlining, but that it failed to do so.9 development or disintegration of the health sector is within the
realm of the political department.
Furthermore, petitioners Elsa O. Guevarra, Arcadio B. Gonzales,
Jose G. Galang, Domingo P. Manay, Eduardo P. Galope, Furthermore, the Court of Appeals decreed that the President
Remedios M. Ysmael, Alfredo U. Bacuñata and Edgardo J. was empowered to issue Executive Order No. 102, in
Damicog, all DOH employees, assailed the validity of Executive accordance with Section 17 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Order No. 102 on the ground that they were likely to lose their It also declared that the DOH did not implement Executive
jobs, and that some of them were suffering from the Order No. 102 in bad faith or with grave abuse of discretion, as
inconvenience of having to travel a longer distance to get to alleged by the petitioners, as the DOH issued Department
their new place of work, while other DOH employees had to Circular No. 275-C, Series of 2000, which created the different
relocate to far-flung areas.10 committees tasked with the implementation of the RSP, only
after both the DBM and Presidential Committee on Effective
Petitioners also pointed out several errors in the Governance (PCEG) approved the RSP on 8 July 2000 and 17
implementation of the RSP. Certain employees allegedly July 2000, respectively.1avvphi1
suffered diminution of compensation, 11 while others were
supposedly assigned to positions for which they were neither Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for
qualified nor suited.12 In addition, new employees were Reconsideration of the Decision rendered on 26 November
purportedly hired by the DOH and appointed to positions for 2004, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated 7 March
which they were not qualified, despite the fact that the 2005.
objective of the ongoing streamlining was to cut back on
costs.13 It was also averred that DOH employees were deployed Hence, the present petition, where the following issues are
or transferred even during the three-month period before the raised:
national and local elections in May 2001, 14 in violation of
Section 2 of the Republic Act No. 7305, also known as "Magna I.
Carta for Public Health Workers." 15 Petitioners, however, failed
to identify the DOH employees referred to above, much less THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST
include them as parties to the petition. ERROR IN RULING THAT ANY QUESTION ON THE WISDOM AND
EFFICACY OF THE HEALTH SECTOR REFORM AGENDA IS NOT A
The Court of Appeals denied the petition due to a number of JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
procedural defects, which proved fatal: 1) Petitioners failed to PROVISIONS PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE FILIPINO
show capacity or authority to sign the certification of non- PEOPLE ARE NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE;
forum shopping and the verification; 2) Petitioners failed to
show any particularized interest for bringing the suit, nor any II.
direct or personal injury sustained or were in the immediate
danger of sustaining; 3) the Petition, brought before the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST
Supreme Court on 15 August 1999, was filed out of time, or
ERROR IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINT THAT
beyond 60 days from the time the reorganization methods
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 102 IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE FILIPINO IS Some of the constitutional provisions invoked in the present
LIKEWISE NOT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE case were taken from Article II of the Constitution --
PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SAID ORDER; AND specifically, Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 18 -- the provisions
of which the Court categorically ruled to be non self-executing
III. in the aforecited case of Tañada v. Angara. 23

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST Moreover, the records are devoid of any explanation of how
ERROR IN UPHOLDING TECHNICALITIES OVER AND ABOVE THE the HSRA supposedly violated the equal protection and due
ISSUES OF TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE RAISED IN THE process clauses that are embodied in Section 1 of Article III of
PETITION BELOW. 16 the Constitution. There were no allegations of discrimination or
of the lack of due process in connection with the HSRA. Since
The Court finds the present petition to be without merit. they failed to substantiate how these constitutional guarantees
were breached, petitioners are unsuccessful in establishing the
relevance of this provision to the petition, and consequently, in
Petitioners allege that the HSRA should be declared void, since
annulling the HSRA.
it runs counter to the aspiration and ideals of the Filipino
people as embodied in the Constitution. 17 They claim that the
HSRA’s policies of fiscal autonomy, income generation, and In the remaining provisions, Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII
revenue enhancement violate Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XV, the State accords
18 of Article II, Section 1 of Article III; Sections 11 and 14 of recognition to the protection of working women and the
Article XIII; and Sections 1 and 3 of Article XV of the 1987 provision for safe and healthful working conditions; to the
Constitution. Such policies allegedly resulted in making adoption of an integrated and comprehensive approach to
inaccessible free medicine and free medical services. This health; to the Filipino family; and to the right of children to
contention is unfounded. assistance and special protection, including proper care and
nutrition. Like the provisions that were declared as non self-
executory in the cases of Basco v. Philippine Amusement and
As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are
Gaming Corporation24 and Tolentino v. Secretary of
considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation
Finance,25 they are mere statements of principles and policies.
for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-
As such, they are mere directives addressed to the executive
executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily
and the legislative departments. If unheeded, the remedy will
nullified by the inaction of Congress. 18 However, some
not lie with the courts; but rather, the electorate’s displeasure
provisions have already been categorically declared by this
may be manifested in their votes.
Court as non self-executing.

The rationale for this is given by Justice Dante Tinga in his

In Tanada v. Angara,19 the Court specifically set apart the
Separate Opinion in the case of Agabon v. National Labor
sections found under Article II of the 1987 Constitution as non
Relations Commission26 :
self-executing and ruled that such broad principles need
legislative enactments before they can be implemented:
x x x However, to declare that the constitutional provisions are
enough to guarantee the full exercise of the rights embodied
By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of
therein, and the realization of the ideals therein expressed,
principles and state policies." x x x. These principles in Article II
would be impractical, if not unrealistic. The espousal of such
are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for
view presents the dangerous tendency of being overbroad and
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary
exaggerated. x x x Subsequent legislation is still needed to
as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial
define the parameters of these guaranteed rights. x x x Without
review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
specific and pertinent legislation, judicial bodies will be at a
loss, formulating their own conclusion to approximate at least
In Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming the aims of the Constitution.
Corporation,20 this Court declared that Sections 11, 12, and 13
of Article II; Section 13 of Article XIII; and Section 2 of Article
The HSRA cannot be nullified based solely on petitioners’ bare
XIV of the 1987 Constitution are not self-executing provisions.
allegations that it violates the general principles expressed in
In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance,21 the Court referred to
the non self-executing provisions they cite herein. There are
Section 1 of Article XIII and Section 2 of Article XIV of the
two reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged
Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially
infringement of broad constitutional principles: basic
enforceable rights. These provisions, which merely lay down a
considerations of due process and the limitations of judicial
general principle, are distinguished from other constitutional
power.27
provisions as non self-executing and, therefore, cannot give rise
to a cause of action in the courts; they do not embody judicially
enforceable constitutional rights.22 Petitioners also claim that Executive Order No. 102 is void on
the ground that it was issued by the President in excess of his
authority. They maintain that the structural and functional
reorganization of the DOH is an exercise of legislative functions, Sec. 23. The Agencies under the Office of the President.—The
which the President usurped when he issued Executive Order agencies under the Office of the President refer to those offices
No. 102.28 This line of argument is without basis. placed under the chairmanship of the President, those under
the supervision and control of the President, those under the
This Court has already ruled in a number of cases that the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, those
President may, by executive or administrative order, direct the attached to it for policy and program coordination, and those
reorganization of government entities under the Executive that are not placed by law or order creating them under any
Department.29 This is also sanctioned under the Constitution, as specific department. (Emphasis provided.)
well as other statutes.
Section 2(4) of the Introductory Provisions of the
Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, clearly states: Administrative Code defines the term "agency of the
"[T]he president shall have control of all executive government" as follows:
departments, bureaus and offices." Section 31, Book III,
Chapter 10 of Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of
Administrative Code of 1987 reads: the Government, including a department, bureau, office,
instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled
SEC. 31. Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
Office - The President, subject to the policy in the Executive
Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and Furthermore, the DOH is among the cabinet-level departments
efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the enumerated under Book IV of the Administrative Code, mainly
administrative structure of the Office of the President. For this tasked with the functional distribution of the work of the
purpose, he may take any of the following actions: President.32 Indubitably, the DOH is an agency which is under
the supervision and control of the President and, thus, part of
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the the Office of the President. Consequently, Section 31, Book III,
President Proper, including the immediate offices, the Chapter 10 of the Administrative Code, granting the President
Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the the continued authority to reorganize the Office of the
Common Staff Support System, by abolishing consolidating or President, extends to the DOH.
merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to
another; The power of the President to reorganize the executive
department is likewise recognized in general appropriations
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to laws. As early as 1993, Sections 48 and 62 of Republic Act No.
any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions 7645, the "General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993,"
to the Office of the President from other Departments or already contained a provision stating that:
Agencies; and
Sec. 48. Scaling Down and Phase Out of Activities Within the
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any Executive Branch.—The heads of departments, bureaus and
other department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the offices and agencies are hereby directed to identify their
Office of the President from other Departments or agencies. respective activities which are no longer essential in the
delivery of public services and which may be scaled down,
In Domingo v. Zamora,30 this Court explained the rationale phased out, or abolished, subject to civil service rules and
behind the President’s continuing authority under the regulations. x x x. Actual scaling down, phasing out, or abolition
Administrative Code to reorganize the administrative structure of activities shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders
of the Office of the President. The law grants the President the issued for the purpose by the Office of the President. (Emphasis
power to reorganize the Office of the President in recognition provided.)
of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his or
her office "to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency." To Sec. 62. Unauthorized Organizational Changes. Unless
remain effective and efficient, it must be capable of being otherwise created by law or directed by the President of the
shaped and reshaped by the President in the manner the Chief Philippines, no organizational unit or changes in key positions in
Executive deems fit to carry out presidential directives and any department or agency shall be authorized in their
policies. respective organizational structures and be funded form
appropriations by this Act.
The Administrative Code provides that the Office of the
President consists of the Office of the President Proper and the Again, in the year when Executive Order No. 102 was issued,
agencies under it.31 The agencies under the Office of the "The General Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 1999" (Republic
President are identified in Section 23, Chapter 8, Title II of the Act No. 8745) conceded to the President the power to make
Administrative Code: any changes in any of the key positions and organizational units
in the executive department thus:
Sec. 77. Organized Changes. Unless otherwise provided by law or to make bureaucracy more efficient. 38 On the other hand, if
or directed by the President of the Philippines, no changes in the reorganization is done for the purpose of defeating security
key positions or organizational units in any department or of tenure or for ill-motivated political purposes, any abolition of
agency shall be authorized in their respective organizational position would be invalid. None of these circumstances are
structures and funded from appropriations provided by this applicable since none of the petitioners were removed from
Act. public service, nor did they identify any action taken by the
DOH that would unquestionably result in their dismissal. The
Clearly, Executive Order No. 102 is well within the reorganization that was pursued in the present case was made
constitutional power of the President to issue. The President in good faith. The RSP was clearly designed to improve the
did not usurp any legislative prerogative in issuing Executive efficiency of the department and to implement the provisions
Order No. 102. It is an exercise of the President’s constitutional of the Local Government Code on the devolution of health
power of control over the executive department, supported by services to local governments. While this Court recognizes the
the provisions of the Administrative Code, recognized by other inconvenience suffered by public servants in their deployment
statutes, and consistently affirmed by this Court. to distant areas, the executive department’s finding of a need
to make health services available to these areas and to make
Petitioners also pointed out several flaws in the delivery of health services more efficient and more compelling
implementation of Executive Order No. 102, particularly the is far from being unreasonable or arbitrary, a determination
RSP. However, these contentions are without merit and are which is well within its authority. In all, this Court finds
insufficient to invalidate the executive order. petitioners’ contentions to be insufficient to invalidate
Executive Order No. 102.
The RSP was allegedly implemented even before the DBM
approved it. The facts show otherwise. It was only after the Without identifying the DOH employees concerned, much less
DBM approved the Notice of Organization, Staffing and including them as parties to the petition, petitioners went on
Compensation Action on 8 July 2000, 33 and after the identifying several errors in the implementation of Executive
Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) issued Order No. 102. First, they alleged that unidentified DOH
on 17 July 2000 Memorandum Circular No. 62, 34approving the employees suffered from a diminution of compensation by
RSP, that then DOH Secretary Alberto G. Romualdez issued on virtue of the provision on Salaries and Benefits found in
28 July 2000 Department Circular No. 275-C, Series of Department Circular No. 312, Series of 2000, issued on 23
2000,35 creating the different committees to implement the October 2000, which reads:
RSP.
2. Any employee who was matched to a position with lower
Petitioners also maintain that the Office of the President should salary grade (SG) shall not suffer a reduction in salary except
have issued an administrative order to carry out the where his/her current salary is higher than the maximum step
streamlining, but that it failed to do so. Such objection cannot of the SG of the new position, in which case he/she shall be
be given any weight considering that the acts of the DOH paid the salary corresponding to the maximum step of the SG
Secretary, as an alter ego of the President, are presumed to be of the new position. RATA shall no longer be received, if
the acts of the President. The members of the Cabinet are employee was matched to a Non-Division Chief Position.
subject at all times to the disposition of the President since
they are merely his alter egos.36 Thus, their acts, performed and Incidentally, the petition shows that none of the petitioners,
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless who are working in the DOH, were entitled to receive RATA at
disapproved by the President, presumptively acts of the the time the petition was filed. Nor was it alleged that they
President.37 Significantly, the acts of the DOH Secretary were suffered any diminution of compensation. Secondly, it was
clearly authorized by the President, who, thru the PCEG, issued claimed that certain unnamed DOH employees were matched
the aforementioned Memorandum Circular No. 62, sanctioning with unidentified positions for which they were supposedly
the implementation of the RSP. neither qualified nor suited. New employees, again unnamed
and not included as parties, were hired by the DOH and
Petitioners Elsa Odonzo Guevarra, Arcadio B. Gonzales, Jose G. appointed to unidentified positions for which they were
Galang, Domingo P. Manay, Eduardo P. Galope, Remedios M. purportedly not qualified, despite the fact that the objective of
Ysmael, Alfredo U. Bacuñata, and Edgardo Damicog, all DOH the ongoing streamlining was to cut back on costs. Lastly,
employees, assailed the validity of Executive Order No. 102 on unspecified DOH employees were deployed or transferred
the ground that they were likely to lose their jobs, and that during the three-month period before the national and local
some of them were suffering from the inconvenience of having elections in May 2001, in violation of Section 2 of the Republic
to travel a longer distance to get to their new place of work, Act No. 7305, also known as "Magna Carta for Public Health
while other DOH employees had to relocate to far-flung areas. Workers."

In several cases, this Court regarded reorganizations of Petitioners’ allegations are too general and unsubstantiated by
government units or departments as valid, for so long as they the records for the Court to pass upon. The persons involved
are pursued in good faith—that is, for the purpose of economy are not identified, details of their appointments and transfers –
such as position, salary grade, and the date they were SO ORDERED.
appointed - are not given; and the circumstances which
attended the alleged violations are not specified. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Even granting that these alleged errors were adequately
proven by the petitioners, they would still not invalidate WE CONCUR:
Executive Order No. 102. Any serious legal errors in laying
down the compensation of the DOH employees concerned can REYNATO S. PUNO
only invalidate the pertinent provisions of Department Circular Chief Justice
No. 312, Series of 2000. Likewise, any questionable
appointments or transfers are properly addressed by an appeal
process provided under Administrative Order No. 94, series of LEONARDO A. CONSUELO YNARES-
2000;39 and if the appeal is meritorious, such appointment or QUISUMBING SANTIAGO
transfer may be invalidated. The validity of Executive Order No. Associate Justice Associate Justice
102 would, nevertheless, remain unaffected. Settled is the rule
that courts are not at liberty to declare statutes invalid, ANGELINA SANDOVAL-
although they may be abused or misabused, and may afford an ANTONIO T. CARPIO
GUTIERREZ
opportunity for abuse in the manner of application. The validity Associate Justice
Associate Justice
of a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its general
purpose and its efficiency to accomplish the end desired, not
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
from its effects in a particular case.40 RENATO C. CORONA
MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
In a number of cases,41 the Court upheld the standing of
citizens who filed suits, wherein the "transcendental
importance" of the constitutional question justified the CONCHITA CARPIO
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
granting of relief. In spite of these rulings, the Court, in MORALES
Associate Justice
Domingo v. Carague,42 dismissed the petition when petitioners Associate Justice
therein failed to show any present substantial interest. It
demonstrated how even in the cases in which the Court DANTE O. TINGA CANCIO C. GARCIA
declared that the matter of the case was of transcendental Associate Justice Associate Justice
importance, the petitioners must be able to assert substantial
interest. Present substantial interest, which will enable a party ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
to question the validity of the law, requires that a party NACHURA
Associate Justice
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its Associate Justice
enforcement.43 It is distinguished from a mere expectancy or
future, contingent, subordinate, or inconsequential interest. 44
CERTIFICATION
In the same way, the Court, in Telecommunications &
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Comelec, 45ruled Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
that a citizen is allowed to raise a constitutional question only hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct the writer of the opinion of the Court.
of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a REYNATO S. PUNO
favorable action. This case likewise stressed that the rule on Chief Justice
constitutional questions which are of transcendental
importance cannot be invoked where a party’s substantive
claim is without merit. Thus, a party’s standing is determined
by the substantive merit of his case or a preliminary estimate
thereof. After a careful scrutiny of the petitioners’ substantive
claims, this Court finds that the petitioners miserably failed to
show any merit to their claims.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is DENIED.

This Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals, promulgated on 26 November 2004, declaring both
the HSRA and Executive Order No. 102 as valid. No costs.