Prepared by Maurinne J

Automotive Industry Workers Alliance (AIWA) v Romulo (2005)

Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Ponente: Chico-Nazario,J.
FACTS:
1.March 10, 2003 -- Executive Order No. 185 transferred the administrative supervision over the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), its regional branches and all its personnel including executive
labor arbiters and labor arbiters from the NLCR Chairperson to the secretary of Labor and Employment
History:
Marcos-PD 442- NLCR was an integral part of DOLE (then Ministry) under the
administrative supervision of Secretary of Justice
Aquino- EO 292- NLCR became an agency attached to DOLE for policy and program
coordination and administrative supervision
March 2, 1989 - RA 6175 amended Article 213 of the Labor Code declaring that NLCR was
to be attached to DOLE for the program and policy coordination only while administrative
supervision was turned over to the NLCR chairman
Rationale for EO 185: improve the rate of disposition of pending cases and institute adequate measures
for the prevention of graft and corruption within the agency
2. March 27, 2003 -- Petitioners call upon the court to exercise judicial review to declare EO 185
unconstitutional as it is assailed to be in derogation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
Petitioners alleged that EO 185 amended RA 6715 which only the Congress can do
ISSUES, ARGUMENTS, and JUDGMENTS
1. WON the petitioners pose an actual controversy and have the legal standing to file the case
Petitioners: Invoke their status as labor unions and taxpayers whose rights and interest are
allegedly violated and prejudiced by EO 185
Respondents: There is no actual case or controversy as the petitioners have not specifically cited
how EO 185 has prejudiced or threatened to prejudice their rights and existence as labor unions
and tax payers. Taxpayers suit will not prosper because labor unions are exempt from paying
taxes and EO 185 does not require additional appropriation for it implementation
The requirement for the exercise of judicial review:
a. Existence of an appropriate case
b. An interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question
Legal standing or locus standi is defined as personal and substantial interest in the case
such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged
c. The plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity
d. The necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case
Judgment: The petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining
any personal injury attributable to the enactment of EO 185.
Requirement of locus standi can be dismissed if the issue is of transcendental importance, of
overarching significance to the society or of paramount public interest.. The petition did not
persuade the court of this. -- EO 185 has administrative nature

Prepared by Maurinne J

Those who have legal standing are the personnel who may find themselves subject of the
Secretary of Labors disciplinary authority and the Congress whose functions to amend, modify
and/or repeal laws the petitioners claimed to suffer of executive encroachment.
Petitioners have no legal standing in the case, therefore there is no actual controversy posed
2. WON E.O. 185 violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers
Judgment: We will have to await the proper party to assail its validity
Wherefore, premised considered, the instant petition dated March 27, 2003, is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.