Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

ANG NARS PARTYLIST VS.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
FACTS
- (2002) PGMA enacted RA 9173, where Sec. 32 provides that “the minimum base pay of nurses
working in the public health institutions shall not be lower than Salary Grade 15 prescribed
under RA 6758 (Compensation and Classification Act of 1989).

- (2009) PGMA approved Joint House Resolution No. 4 (HR No. 36 and SR No. 26), authorizing the
President to modify the compensation and position classification system of civilian personnel,
and amended provisions of laws, such as RA 9173, among others, inconsistent with such
Resolution. It also repealed all laws prescribing salary grades for government officials and
employees, other than those in Section 8 of RA 6758.

- (2009) PGMA issued EO 811 to implement Joint House Resolution No. 4, where Section 6 of
which modified the entry level salary grade of nurses from SG 10 to SG 11.

- (2014) Rep. Paquiz (Ang Nars) wrote to DOH Sec. Ona and DBM Sec. Abad inquiring about the
non-implementation of Section 32 of RA 9173.

o Sec. Ona replied, stating that:

 The salary grade classification was based on RA 6758 and Senate Joint Resolution
No. 26, which authorized the President to modify the compensation and
classification system of civilian personnel.

 That the DBM’s Manual on Position Classification and Compensation states as a


general rule that, “only the duties and responsibilities of the position are
considered in position classification,” and that based on their analysis, only a
Nurse II, who has more complicated tasks and more range of responsibility than a
Nurse I (SG 11) would qualify for SG 15.

o DBM OIC Macaranas responded:

 Under Sec. 34 of NBC No. 521, implementing Joint House Resolution No. 4,
reallocated certain medical and allied medical positions to give meaning to “equal
pay for equal work”, in that positions which have substantially equal qualifications,
skills, effort and responsibility under similar conditions shall be paid similar
salaries.

 Implementing Sec 32 of RA 9173 would distort the hierarchical relationships of


medical, and allied positions, as well as other positions in the bureaucracy, and
would cost P438M.

 DBM-conducted salary survey of the private sector will be the basis for
recommendations for future salary adjustments.

- (2014) Rep. Paquiz wrote to DOJ Sec. De Lima asking for legal opinion on the matter, but was
declined.
o Sec. De Lima responded:

Page 1 of 7
 DBM was specifically empowered to “classify positions and determine appropriate
salaries for specific position classes.”

 DBM Secretary has “supervision and control” and “jurisdiction over all bureaus,
offices, agencies, and corporations” under DBM, including the authority to
“review, approve, reverse, or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or
units, thus, is in the best position to respond.

 Ruling on the matter would pass upon the duly issued NBC No. 521 (administrative
rule and regulation, which DOJ cannot do, unless requested by the said agency, by
reason of its knowledge of the specific intent and purposes of the issuance.

 Under Sec. 38 of RA 9173, it is the Board of Nursing and PRC, in coordination with
DBM and DOH that are mandated to issue RA 9173’s IRR.

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS through the OSG


a. Joint House Resolution No. 4 did not
authorize the President to revise the salary
grade system under RA 6758, as amended
by RA 9173.

Section 6 thereof provides, “Nothing in this


Joint Resolution shall be interpreted to
reduce, diminish, or in any way, alter the
benefits provide for in existing laws on
Magna Carta benefits for specific officials
and employees in government, regardless of
whether said benefits have been already
received or have yet to be implemented.”

EO 811, being an administrative issuance,


must be consistent with laws and should not
amend or modify the law.

b. Joint House Resolution No. 4 did not amend Section 32 of RA 9173 was amended, not by EO
Section 32 of RA 9173 and did not lower the 811, but by Joint House Resolution No. 4,
entry-lever salary of nurses to SG11. adopted by both the Senate and the House of
Representatives, which has the force and effect
of a law.
c. EO 811 violated the principle of non- EO 811, fixing the entry-level salary of nurses at
diminution of salaries stipulated Joint House SG 11 is a valid delegation of power under Joint
Resolution No. 4 since it also repealed House Resolution No. 4.
Section 32 of RA 9173, a repeal that is
beyond the authority given to the President There is no diminution of salary of nurses
under Joint House Resolution No. 4. because the minimum base pay under EO 811 is
higher than the base pay under Section 32 of
RA 9173.
d. DBM never implemented Section 32 of RA 9173
because it would create inequality and
distortion in the hierarchical relationships of
Page 2 of 7
the medical and allied positions and the other
positions in the bureaucracy.
e. Petitioners availed of the wrong remedy
(certiorari and mandamus), instead of a petition
for declaratory relief.

Granting petitioners availed of the correct


remedy, they violated the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts in filing the petition directly with the
Supreme Court.

STANDING
1. PSLINK – NO LEGAL STANDING

 A confederation of public sector unions of Philippine government employees,


including the health sector. Its members include government nurses.

 It is an UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, hence, NOT A JURIDICAL PERSON OR


ENTITY authorized by law that can be a party to a civil action.

 It lacks the legal capacity to sue in its own name, or in the name of the members
of its association without proper authorization or valid authority from its
members.

2. REP. PAQUIZ OF ANG NARS PARTY-LIST – HAS LEGAL STANDING

 Ang Nars Party-list represents both government nurses directly affected by EO 811
as well as nurses from the private sector.

 Has no standing as a member of Congress – as the standing should pertain to


questions on the validity of any official action that they claim to infringe on the
prerogatives, powers, and privileges vested by the Constitution to their office –,
but due to the transcendental importance of the case, suing in the public interest.

 Requirements Exacted under the Locus Standi Rule:


a. Interest must be direct and personal – Rep. Paquiz will not suffer direct
injury for the non-implementation of RA 9173, but her interest is direct
insofar as she is the duly-elected representative of nurses in the
country.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS AND PETITIONERS’ REMEDY

- The doctrine on the hierarchy of courts states that petitions for certiorari and prohibition, which
fall under the CONCURRENT JURSIDICTION of the RTCs, the higher courts, and the Supreme Court,
must first be brought to the lowest court with jurisdiction.

- A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should
be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition.

- BUT, the doctrine is not an iron-clad rule. The Court has full discretionary power to take
cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for
Page 3 of 7
exceptionally compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and
specifically raised in the petition.

o In issues of transcendental importance, the imminence and clarity of the threat to


fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence. It prevents the
courts from paralysis of procedural niceties when clearly faced with the need for
substantial protection.

 When dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
 When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
 When the challenged orders were patent nullities;
 When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified
the immediate and direct handling of the case.

o In this case, the law remained unimplemented since 2002, and the nurses who stand to
benefit from the implementation of Section 32 of RA 9173 remain in limbo as to the
status of their salary classification.

o As to the argument that the petition should have been for declaratory relief, the Court
ruled that, “where the case has far-reaching implications and prays for injunctive reliefs,
the Court may consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65. The Court
dispensed with technicalities to give due course to the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondents committed grave abuse of discretion and exceed the authority
granted by Joint House Resolution No. 4 when they downgraded the salary grade for government
nurses in EO 811.

2. Whether or not Joint House Resolution No. 4 amended Section 32 of the Philippine Nursing Act of
2002 (RA 9173).

Under the Constitution, only a bill can become a law, and it must pass three readings ON
SEPARATE DAYS (Article VI, Section 26), unless the president certifies it as urgent.

Under the Senate Rules of Procedure, the following are the types of legislation:

 Bills – general measures that may become laws.


 Joint Resolutions – no real difference from a bill; also requires the approval of both
houses and the signature of the president; has the force and effect of law;
generally used when dealing with single item or issue, such as continuing or
emergency appropriations bill, or to propose amendments to the Constitution.
 Concurrent Resolutions – used for matters affecting the operations of both houses
and must be passed in the same form by both houses; does not have the force of
law.
 Simple Resolutions – deals with mattes entirely within the prerogative of each
house.

RULES OF THE SENATE RULES OF THE HOUSE


Section 64. Prior to their final approval, bills and joint Section 58. No bill or joint
resolutions shall be read at least three times. resolution shall become law

Page 4 of 7
Section 68. No bill shall be passed by the Senate unless it has unless it passes thee (3) readings
passed three (3) readings on separate days. on separate days.

(NO EXPRESS PROVISION THAT SECTION 68 APPLIES TO JOINT


RESOLUTIONS)

There is no express language in the Rules of the Senate that a


Joint Resolution must pass three readings on SEPARATE DAYS.
Thus, it can pass a Joint Resolution ON THE SAME DAY.
THE COURT
Neither the Rules of the Senate nor the House can amend the Constitution, which recognizes
that ONLY A BILL CAN BECOME A LAW. A Joint Resolution can only be part of the implementation
of a law as provided in the law itself.

The Senate and House Rules may be changed as the Senate and the House may deem fit. After
each election, the body proceeds to adopt the rules of the immediately preceding Congress to
govern its proceedings, until the approval and adoption of the rules of the current Congress.

When a bill is proposed, the public is immediately informed that there is a proposal being
considered which may bind them. This is in consonance with the requirement on transparency
under Section 28, Article II of the Constitution. If a joint resolution is proposed instead of a bill,
the public will not be alerted that there is a proposed legislation, and a law can pass stealthily
without notice to the public.

Multiple Sections in Article VI, on appropriations, refer to bills, including the President’s veto
powers ONLY on BILLS, not on Joint Resolutions.

The US Constitution’s treatment of Joint Resolutions as that similar to bills cannot be applied in
the Philippines. There is no express or implied language in the Constitution providing that a joint
resolution can be enacted into law if the same procedure for enacting a bill is followed.

Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation
or construction, be extended to other matters. Failure to include joint resolutions in the scope of
the 1935 Constitution (eventually carried over in the 1987 Constitution) is not a clerical error.
The fact that it was in the draft, but was not included in the final version only means that the
deletion of the term “joint resolutions” was deliberate and not a mere clerical error.

While a Joint Resolution goes through the same process as bills, it is only because Congress
provides for the process under the Rules of Procedures, which a new Congress is not bound to
adopt.

BILL vs. JOINT RESOLUTION


1. Must pass three (3) readings on separate days.

There can be no deviation from this requirement, unless the President certifies the bill as
urgent.

Joint resolutions may be approved in one, two, or three readings on the same day or on
separate days, depending on the Rules at the sole discretion of Congress.

2. Printed copies in its final form must be distributed to Members three days before its
passage.
Page 5 of 7
There can be no deviation from this requirement, unless the President certifies the bill as
urgent.

Printed copies of joint resolutions in its final form may be distributed days after,
depending on the Rules at the sole discretion of Congress.

3. Must be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

There can be no deviation from this.

Joint Resolutions does not require the President’s signature or veto, unless the Rules
requires such, which is at the sole discretion of Congress.

4. Upon last reading, no amendment is allowed, and voting on the bill shall immediately be
taken.

There can be no deviation from this requirement.

There is no such requirement in approving a joint Resolution, unless required by the


Rules.

5. Procedure for enacting a bill into law is PERMANENTLY FIXED as prescribed by the
Constitution and cannot be amended by any act of Congress.

Procedures for the passing of joint resolutions may be changed by the Senate and the
House.

Leaving it in the sole discretion of either the Senate or House whether a joint resolution would
become a law is not how the Constitution prescribes the enactment of a law.

For purposes of repealing an existing law, there must be a repealing provision or an irreconcilably
inconsistent provision, in a subsequent valid law, not merely a joint resolution.

Section 3 f RA 6758 provides for the review of the compensation rates for government
employees. After such a review, ANY CHANGE IN COMPESATION RATES SHOULD BE DONE BY
ENACTING A NEW LAW. Any such change amends the existing law, and such amendment cannot
be done by a mere joint resolution because a joint resolution cannot amend a law.

JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, which seeks to change or revise the Compensation and Position
Classification System established by existing law, CANNOT TAKE EFFECT WITHOUT AN
AMENDATORY LAW.

Section 8 of RA 6758 specifies the salary grades of specific positions.

Section 9 of RA 6758, on the other hand, only provides for a benchmark position schedule for
other positions (below the officials mentioned in Section 8), and a Nurse is under SG10. Section 9
created a benchmark to guide the DBM in its preparation of the Index of Occupational Services,
and it may only be amended by law. A join resolution cannot amend the Benchmark Position
Schedule, which is fixed by law. It only has the effect of a recommendation to the government
agency authorized to implement the law (RA 6758).

Page 6 of 7
The change in the salary grade of nurses was done through a law (RA 9173), which superseded
the authority given to DBM, hence, cannot be amended by a mere joint resolution.

An implementing resolution, like Joint Resolution No. 4, not being a separate law itself, cannot
amend prior laws. Such implementing resolution can only implement the SSL, not repeal its
enabling law or prior laws. Joint Resolution No. 4 can only recommend to the President, in
accordance with the authority given to the DBM under RA 6758. Thus, the amendatory language
of Joint Resolution No. 4 cannot revise the salary grades in the SSL or in any other law like RA
9173. The amendatory language can only amend prior congressional resolutions inconsistent
with Joint Resolution No. 4.

EO 811, not being a law, cannot also amend or repeal Section 32 of RA 9173.

Nevertheless, despite the CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF SECTION 32 OF RA 9173, the
Court cannot grant petitioner’s prayer to compel respondents to implement such provision. IT IS
AN IMPLEMENTATION THAT REQUIRES THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS THROUGH A LAW,
where such power of the purse belongs exclusively to Congress under Sections 24 and 25 of
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

THE POWER TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS CAN ONY BE MADE THROUGH A LAW, AND THE POWER TO
ENACT A LAW IS A PURELY LEGISLATIVE POWER.

3. Whether or not respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting that the entry-level
salary for government nurses should only be SG 11, and disregarding the provisions of RA 9173.

RULING:

1. The VALIDITY of Section 32 of RA 9173 was UPHELD.

2. THE PROVISIOSN OF PARAGRAPH 16 OF JOINR RESOLUTION NO. 4, and SECTION 6 OF EO 811,


purporting to amend or repeal Section 32 of RA 9173, are declared VOID and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

3. Petition to COMPEL respondents to implement Section 32 of RA 9173 was DISMISSED.

Page 7 of 7