ABAKADA GURO PARTYLIST vs.

PURISIMA

FACTS:

Petitioners question the Attrition Act of 2005 and contend that by establishing a system
of rewards and incentives when they exceed their revenue targets, the law
(1) transforms the officials and employees of the BIR and BOC into mercenaries and
bounty hunters; (2) violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection as it limits
the scope of the law to the BIR and BOC; (3) unduly delegates to the President the
power to fix revenue targets without sufficient standards; and (4) violates the doctrine
of separation of powers by creating a Congressional Oversight Committee to approve
the law’s implementing rules.

ISSUE:

Is R.A. No. 9335 constitutional?

HELD:

YES. R.A. No. 9335 is constitutional, except for Section 12 of the law which creates a
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to review the law’s IRR.

That RA No. 9335 will turn BIR and BOC employees and officials into “bounty hunters
and mercenaries” is purely speculative as the law establishes safeguards by imposing
liabilities on officers and employees who are guilty of negligence, abuses, malfeasance,
etc. Neither is the equal protection clause violated since the law recognizes a valid
classification as only the BIR and BOC have the common distinct primary function of
revenue generation. There are sufficient policy and standards to guide the President in
fixing revenue targets as the revenue targets are based on the original estimated
revenue collection expected of the BIR and the BOC.

However, the creation of a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee for the purpose of
reviewing the IRR formulated by agencies of the executive branch (DOF, DBM, NEDA,
etc.) is unconstitutional since it violates the doctrine of separation of powers since
Congress arrogated judicial power upon itself.

1
 CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD vs CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

Blesilda Lodevico (Lodevico) was appointed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on

May 14, 2008 as Director III, Recruitment and Career Development Service, CESB.
Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility since November 29, 2001, as
evidenced by the Certificate of Eligibility issued by the CSC. June 30, 2010: Office of the
President (OP) issued Memorandum Circular 1 (MC1) which declared all non-career
executive service positions vacant. July 16, 2010: OP promulgated the Implementing
Guidelines of MC 1, which states that all non-Career Executive Service Officers (non-
CESO) in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office and continue to
perform their duties until July 31, 2010 or until their resignations have been accepted
and/or their replacements have been appointed or designated, whichever comes first.
Pursuant to MC 1, Abesamis of CESB issued a memorandum informing Lodevico that she
shall only remain in office until July 31, 2010. Lodevico filed her appeal on the
memorandum issued by Abesamis before the CSC. CSC ruled in favor of Leodevico and
declared the memorandum null and void. Career Executive Service board filed an MR but
it was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 62. Respondents aver that the
petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal as Rule 43 is the proper remedy.

ISSUE: WON Certiorari and Prohibition under rule 65 is proper? No

HELD:

It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and prohibition are

resorted to only where (a) a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In the case at bar,
it is clear that the second requirement is absent as petition for review under Section
118 of Rule 43 ·is available to petitioners. However, there are exceptions to the
aforementioned rule, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public
policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c) when the writs
issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise
of judicial authority.