Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-27811 November 17, 1967

LACSON-MAGALLANES CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOSE PA O, !ON. JUAN PAJO, "# $"% &'('&")* '% E+e&,)"ve Se&re)'r*, '#- !ON. JUAN .E G. RO.RIGUE/, "# $"% &'('&")* '% Se&re)'r* o0 A1r"&,2),re '#- N'),r'2 Re%o,r&e%, defendants-appellees. Leopoldo M. Abellera for plaintiff-appellant. Victorio Advincula for defendant Jose Pao. Office of the Solicitor General for defendant Secretary of A riculture and !atural "esources and #$ecutive Secretary. SANC!E/, J.: The question Ma the E!ecutive "ec#eta# , actin$ b autho#it of the P#esident, #eve#se a decision of the %i#ecto# of &ands that had been affi#'ed b the E!ecutive "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces ielded an affi#'ative ans(e# f#o' the lo(e# cou#t. ) *ence, this appeal ce#tified to this Cou#t b the Cou#t of Appeals upon the p#ovisions of "ections )+ and ,) of the -udicia# Act of )./0, as a'ended. The undisputed cont#ollin$ facts a#e1 2n ).,3, -ose Ma$allanes (as a pe#'ittee and actual occupant of a ),)4,-hecta#e pastu#e land situated in Ta'lan$on, Municipalit of Bansalan, P#ovince of %avao. 5n -anua# ., ).6,, Ma$allanes ceded his #i$hts and inte#ests to a po#tion 7,.3,+68. hecta#es9 of the above public land to plaintiff. 5n Ap#il ),, ).6/, the po#tion Ma$allanes ceded to plaintiff (as officiall #eleased f#o' the fo#est :one as pastu#e land and decla#ed a$#icultu#al land. 5n -anua# 38, ).66, -ose Pa;o and nineteen othe# clai'ants 3 applied fo# the pu#chase of ninet hecta#es of the #eleased a#ea. 5n Ma#ch 3., ).66, plaintiff co#po#ation in tu#n filed its o(n sales application cove#in$ the enti#e #eleased a#ea. This (as p#otested b -ose Pa;o and his nineteen co'panions upon the ave#'ent that the a#e actual occupants of the pa#t the#eof cove#ed b thei# o(n sales application. The %i#ecto# of &ands, follo(in$ an investi$ation of the conflict, #ende#ed a decision on -ul ,), ).68 $ivin$ due cou#se to the application of plaintiff co#po#ation, and dis'issin$ the clai' of -ose Pa;o and his co'panions. A 'ove to #econside# failed. 5n -ul 6, ).6+, the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces on appeal b -ose Pa;o fo# hi'self and his co'panions held that the appeal (as (ithout 'e#it and dis'issed the sa'e.

The case (as elevated to the P#esident of the Philippines. 5n -une 36, ).60, E!ecutive "ec#eta# -uan Pa<o, =>b? autho#it of the P#esident= decided the cont#ove#s , 'odified the decision of the %i#ecto# of &ands as affi#'ed b the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces, and 7)9 decla#ed that =it (ould be fo# the public inte#est that appellants, (ho a#e 'ostl landless fa#'e#s (ho depend on the land fo# thei# e!istence, be allocated that po#tion on (hich the have 'ade i'p#ove'ents@= and 739 di#ected that the cont#ove#ted land 7no#the#n po#tion of BlocA 2, &C Map )+/., P#o<ect No. 3+, of Bansalan, %avao, (ith &atian Rive# as the dividin$ line9 =should be subdivided into lots of convenient si:es and allocated to actual occupants, (ithout p#e<udice to the co#po#ationBs #i$ht to #ei'bu#se'ent fo# the cost of su#ve in$ this po#tion.= 2t 'a be (ell to state, at this point, that the decision <ust 'entioned, si$ned b the E!ecutive "ec#eta# , (as planted upon the facts as found in said decision. Plaintiff co#po#ation tooA the fo#e$oin$ decision to the Cou#t of Ci#st 2nstance p#a in$ that <ud$'ent be #ende#ed decla#in$1 7)9 that the decision of the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces has full fo#ce and effect@ and 739 that the decision of the E!ecutive "ec#eta# is cont#a# to la( and of no le$al fo#ce and effect. And no( sub<ect of this appeal is the <ud$'ent of the cou#t a %uo dis'issin$ plaintiffBs case. ). PlaintiffBs 'ainsta is "ection / of Co''on(ealth Act )/). The p#ecept the#e is that decisions of the %i#ecto# of &ands =as to questions of facts shall be conclusive (hen app#oved= b the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces. PlaintiffBs t#ench'ent clai' is that this statute is cont#ollin$ not onl upon cou#ts but also upon the P#esident. PlaintiffBs position is inco##ect. The P#esidentBs dut to e!ecute the la( is of constitutional o#i$in., "o, too, is his cont#ol of all e!ecutive depa#t'ents. / Thus it is, that depa#t'ent heads a#e 'en of his confidence. *is is the po(e# to appoint the'@ his, too, is the p#ivile$e to dis'iss the' at pleasu#e. Natu#all , he cont#ols and di#ects thei# acts. 2'plicit then is his autho#it to $o ove#, confi#', 'odif o# #eve#se the action taAen b his depa#t'ent sec#eta#ies. 2n this conte!t, it 'a not be said that the P#esident cannot #ule on the co##ectness of a decision of a depa#t'ent sec#eta# . Pa#ticula#l in #efe#ence to the decisions of the %i#ecto# of &ands, as affi#'ed b the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces, the standa#d p#actice is to allo( appeals f#o' such decisions to the 5ffice of the P#esident.6This Cou#t has #eco$ni:ed this p#actice in seve#al cases. 2n one, the decision of the &ands %i#ecto# as app#oved b the "ec#eta# (as conside#ed supe#seded b that of the P#esidentBs appeal. 8 2n othe# cases, failu#e to pu#sue o# #eso#t to this last #e'ed of appeal (as conside#ed a fatal defect, (a##antin$ dis'issal of the case, fo# non-e!haustion of all ad'inist#ative #e'edies.+ Pa#entheticall , it 'a be stated that the #i$ht to appeal to the P#esident #eposes upon the P#esidentBs po(e# of cont#ol ove# the e!ecutive depa#t'ents. 0 And cont#ol si'pl 'eans =the po(e# of an office# to alte# o# 'odif o# nullif o# set aside (hat a subo#dinate office# had done in the pe#fo#'ance of his duties and to substitute the <ud$'ent of the fo#'e# fo# that of the latte#.= . This unquestionabl ne$ates the asse#tion that the P#esident cannot undo an act of his depa#t'ent sec#eta# . 3. Plaintiff ne!t sub'its that the decision of the E!ecutive "ec#eta# he#ein is an undue dele$ation of po(e#. The Constitution, petitione# asse#ts, does not contain an p#ovision (he#eb the p#esidential po(e# of cont#ol 'a be dele$ated to the E!ecutive "ec#eta# . 2t is a#$ued that it is the constitutional dut of the P#esident to act pe#sonall upon the 'atte#.

2t is co##ect to sa that constitutional po(e#s the#e a#e (hich the P#esident 'ust e!e#cise in pe#son.)4 Not as co##ect, ho(eve#, is it so sa that the Chief E!ecutive 'a not dele$ate to his E!ecutive "ec#eta# acts (hich the Constitution does not co''and that he pe#fo#' in pe#son.)) Reason is not (antin$ fo# this vie(. The P#esident is not e!pected to pe#fo#' in pe#son all the 'ultifa#ious e!ecutive and ad'inist#ative functions. The 5ffice of the E!ecutive "ec#eta# is an au!ilia# unit (hich assists the P#esident. The #ule (hich has thus $ained #eco$nition is that =unde# ou# constitutional setup the E!ecutive "ec#eta# (ho acts fo# and in behalf and b autho#it of the P#esident has an undisputed <u#isdiction to affi#', 'odif , o# even #eve#se an o#de#= that the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces, includin$ the %i#ecto# of &ands, 'a issue.)3 ,. But plaintiff unde#sco#es the fact that the E!ecutive "ec#eta# is equal in #anA to the othe# depa#t'ent heads, no hi$he# than an one of the'. C#o' this, plaintiff ca#ves the a#$u'ent that one depa#t'ent head, on the p#ete!t that he is an alter e o of the P#esident, cannot int#ude into the :one of action allocated to anothe# depa#t'ent sec#eta# . This a#$u'ent bet#a s lacA of app#eciation of the fact that (he#e, as in this case, the E!ecutive "ec#eta# acts =>b? autho#it of the P#esident,= his decision is that of the P#esidentBs. "uch decision is to be $iven full faith and c#edit b ou# cou#ts. The assu'ed autho#it of the E!ecutive "ec#eta# is to be accepted. Co#, onl the P#esident 'a #i$htfull sa that the E!ecutive "ec#eta# is not autho#i:ed to do so. The#efo#e, unless the action taAen is =disapp#oved o# #ep#obated b the Chief E!ecutive,= ), that #e'ains the act of the Chief E!ecutive, and cannot be successfull assailed. )/ No such disapp#oval o# #ep#obation is even inti'ated in the #eco#d of this case. Co# the #easons $iven, the <ud$'ent unde# #evie( is he#eb affi#'ed. Costs a$ainst plaintiff. "o o#de#ed. &oncepcion' &.J.' "eyes' J.(.L.' )i*on' Ma+alintal' (en *on' J.P.' ,aldivar' &astro and An eles' JJ.' concu#.

Se('r')e O("#"o#% 3ERNAN.O, J., concu##in$1 The lea#ned opinion of -ustice "anche: possesses 'e#it and inspi#es assent. A fu#the# obse#vation 'a not be a'iss conce#nin$ that po#tion the#eof (hich speaAs of =the standa#d p#actice= allo(in$ appeals f#o' >decisions of "ec#eta# of Natu#al Resou#ces affi#'in$ the action taAen b the %i#ecto# of &ands? to the 5ffice of the P#esident. That fo# 'e is 'o#e than a =standa#d p#actice.= 2t is sound la(. The constitutional $#ant to the P#esident of the po(e# of cont#ol ove# all e!ecutive depa#t'ents, bu#eaus and offices ields that i'plication. ) 2f this (e#e all, the#e (ould be no need fo# an additional e!p#ession of ' vie(s. 2 feel const#ained to do so ho(eve# in o#de# to e'phasi:e that the opinion of the Cou#t appea#s to 'e to #eflect (ith $#eate# fidelit the constitutional intent as e'bodied in the above p#ovision vestin$ the po(e# of cont#ol in the P#esidenc . The question asAed in the openin$ pa#a$#aph of the opinion =Ma the E!ecutive "ec#eta# , actin$ b autho#it of the P#esident, #eve#se a decision of the %i#ecto# of &ands that had been affi#'ed b the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces >D?= 'e#its but one ans(e#. 2t 'ust be in the unqualified affi#'ative. "o the Cou#t holds. That is as it should be. An othe# vie( (ould be hi$hl uno#thodo!. Nonetheless, the thou$ht see's to lu#A in the opinion of a #espectable nu'be# of 'e'be#s of the ba# that a p#ovision as that found in the Public &and Act to the effect that decisions of %i#ecto# of

&ands on questions of facts shall be conclusive (hen app#oved b the "ec#eta# of A$#icultu#e and Natu#al Resou#ces3 constitute a li'itation of such po(e# of cont#ol. This vie( 'i$ht have $ained plausibilit in the li$ht of An -An co vs. &astillo,, (he#e the p#ocedu#e set fo#th in the Civil "e#vice Act in ).6. (as held bindin$ in so fa# as the P#esident is conce#ned in the case of disciplina# action taAen a$ainst non-p#esidential appointees. The a#$u'ent that (hat the then E!ecutive "ec#eta# actin$ fo# the P#esident did (as <ustified b the constitutional $#ant of cont#ol elicited no favo#able #esponse. The Cou#t appa#entl (as not #eceptive to a 'o#e e!pansive vie( of such e!ecutive p#e#o$ative. This is not to sa that (hat (as the#e decided (as enti#el lacAin$ in <ustification. 2t is 'e#el to su$$est that it 'a contain i'plications not in confo#'it (ith the b#oad $#ant of autho#it constitutionall confe##ed on the P#esident. 2t is (ell-(o#th e'phasi:in$ that the P#esident unliAe an othe# official in the E!ecutive %epa#t'ent is vested (ith both =constitutional and le$al autho#it = / as -ustice &au#el noted. Ca#e is to be taAen then lest b a too na##o( inte#p#etation (hat could #easonabl be included in such co'petence #eco$ni:ed b the Constitution be undul #est#icted. 2f ' #eadin$ of the opinion of -ustice "anche: is co##ect, then the#e is a 'o#e hospitable scope acco#ded such po(e# of cont#ol. Co# 'e this is 'o#e in Aeepin$ (ith the funda'ental la(. Mo#eove# the#e (ould be a $#eate# a(a#eness on the pa#t of all of the b#oad #an$e of autho#it the P#esident possesses b vi#tue of such a p#ovision. Refe#ence to the (o#ds of -ustice &au#el, (ho (as hi'self one of the leadin$ f#a'e#s of the Constitution and the#eafte#, as a 'e'be# of this Cou#t, one of its 'ost autho#itative e!pounde#s in the leadin$ case of Villena vs. Secretary of -nterior ,6 is not inapp#op#iate. Thei# #eve#be#atin$ clan$, to pa#aph#ase -ustice Ca#do:o, should d#o(n all (eaAe# sounds. Thus1 =Afte# se#ious #eflection, (e have decided to sustain the contention of the $ove#n'ent in this case on the b#oad p#oposition, albeit not su$$ested, that unde# the p#esidential t pe of $ove#n'ent (hich (e have adopted and conside#in$ the depa#t'ental o#$ani:ation established and continued in fo#ce b pa#a$#aph ), section )3, A#ticle E22, of ou# Constitution, all e!ecutive and ad'inist#ative o#$ani:ations a#e ad<uncts of the E!ecutive %epa#t'ent, the heads of the va#ious e!ecutive depa#t'ents a#e assistants and a$ents of the Chief E!ecutive, and e!cept in cases (he#e the Chief E!ecutive is #equi#ed b the Constitution o# the la( to act in pe#son o# the e!i$encies of the situation de'and that he act pe#sonall , the 'ultifa#ious e!ecutive and ad'inist#ative functions of the Chief E!ecutive a#e pe#fo#'ed b and th#ou$h the e!ecutive depa#t'ents, and the acts of the sec#eta#ies of such depa#t'ents, pe#fo#'ed and p#o'ul$ated in the #e$ula# cou#se of business, a#e, unless disapp#oved o# #ep#obated b the Chief E!ecutive, p#esu'ptivel the acts of the Chief E!ecutive. 7RunAle vs. Fnited "tates >)00+?, )33 F."., 6/,@ ,4 &a(. ed., ))8+@ + "up. "t. Rep. ))/)@ see also F.". vs. Eliason >)0,.?, )8 Pet., 3.)@ )4 &a(. ed., .80@ -ones vs. F.". >)0.4?, ),+ F.". 343@ ,/ &a(. ed., 8.)@ )) "up. Ct. Rep. 04@ Golse vs. Chap'an >)004?, )4) F.". ++6@ 36 &a(. ed. .)6@ Gilco! vs. -acAson >)0,8?, ), Pet. /.0@ )4 &a(. ed. 38/.9= The opinion of -ustice &au#el continues1 =Cea# is e!p#essed b 'o#e than one 'e'be# of this cou#t that the acceptance of the p#inciple of qualified political a$enc in this and si'ila# cases (ould #esult in the assu'ption of #esponsibilit b the P#esident of the Philippines fo# acts of an 'e'be# of his cabinet, ho(eve# ille$al, i##e$ula# o# i'p#ope# 'a be these acts. The i'plications, it is said, a#e se#ious. Cea#, ho(eve#, is no valid a#$u'ent a$ainst the s ste' once adopted, established and ope#ated. Ca'ilia#it (ith the essential bacA$#ound of the t pe of $oven'ent established unde# ou# Constitution, in the li$ht of ce#tain (ell-Ano(n p#inciples and p#actices that $o (ith the s ste', should offe# the necessa# e!planation. Gith #efe#ence to the E!ecutive %epa#t'ent of the $ove#n'ent, the#e is one pu#pose (hich is c# stal clea# and is #eadil visible (ithout the p#o<ection of <udicial sea#chli$ht, and that is, the establish'ent of a sin$le, not plu#al, E!ecutive. The fi#st section of A#ticle E22 of the Constitution, dealin$ (ith the E!ecutive %epa#t'ent, be$in (ith the enunciation of the p#inciple that BThe e!ecutive po(e# shall be vested in a P#esident of the Philippines.B This 'eans that the P#esident of the Philippines is the E!ecutive of the Hove#n'ent of the Philippines, and no othe#. The heads of the e!ecutive depa#t'ents occup political positions and hold office in an adviso# capacit , and, in the

lan$ua$e of Tho'as -effe#son, Bshould be of the P#esidentBs boso' confidenceB 7+ G#itin$s, Co#d ed., /.09, and, in the lan$ua$e of Atto#ne -Hene#al Cushin$, 7+ 5p., Atto#ne -Hene#al, /6,9, Ba#e sub<ect to the di#ection of the P#esident.B Githout 'ini'i:in$ the i'po#tance of the heads of the va#ious depa#t'ents, thei# pe#sonalit is in #ealit but the p#o<ection of that of the P#esident. "tated othe#(ise, and as fo#cibl cha#acte#i:ed b Chief -ustice Taft of the "up#e'e Cou#t of the Fnited "tates, Beach head of a depa#t'ent is, and 'ust be the P#esidentBs alter e o in the 'atte#s of that depa#t'ent (he#e the P#esident is #equi#ed b la( to e!e#cise autho#it B 7M e#s vs. Fnited "tates, /+ "up. Ct. Rep. 3) at ,4@ 3+3 F.". 63 at ),,@ +) &a(. ed., )849. "ec#eta#ies of depa#t'ents, of cou#se, e!e#cise ce#tain po(e#s unde# the la( but the la( cannot i'pai# o# in an (a affect the constitutional po(e# of cont#ol and di#ection of the P#esident. As a 'atte# of e!ecutive polic , the 'a be $#anted depa#t'ental autono' as to ce#tain 'atte#s but this is b 'e#e concession of the e!ecutive, in the absence of valid le$islation in the pa#ticula# field. 2f the P#esident, then, is the autho#it in the E!ecutive %epa#t'ent, he assu'es the co##espondin$ #esponsibilit . The head of a depa#t'ent is a 'an of his confidence@ he cont#ols and di#ects his acts@ he appoints hi' and can #e'ove hi' at pleasu#e@ he is the e!ecutive, not an of his sec#eta#ies. 2t is the#efo#e lo$ical that he, the P#esident, should be ans(e#able fo# the acts of ad'inist#ation of the enti#e E!ecutive %epa#t'ent befo#e his o(n conscience no less than befo#e that undefined po(e# of public opinion (hich, in the lan$ua$e of %aniel Gebste#, is the last #eposito# of popula# $ove#n'ent. These a#e the necessa# co#olla#ies of the A'e#ican p#esidential t pe of $ove#n'ent, and if the#e is an defect, it is att#ibutable to the s ste' itself. Ge cannot 'odif the s ste' unless (e 'odif the Constitution, and (e cannot 'odif the Constitution b an subtle p#ocess of <udicial inte#p#etation o# const#uction.= &oncepcion' &.J. and &astro' J.' concu#.

3oo)#o)e% "ANC*EI, J.1

)

"pecial Civil Case No. 3+.3, Cou#t of Ci#st 2nstance of %avao, B#anch 22.

-ulian Balala, Ma$dalena Balala, Clo#encio A$uinaldo, Ped#o Ro$uian, Ca#lo C#ancisco, -ose Pascua, A$apito Eie#nes, Rica#do Eillanueva, Ce:a#io Butava, Eicente Ri a, Ped#o Rin$o#, -ose Ba#tolo'e, Ben<a'in "i'on, Ca#los Eillanueva, Es'io "i'on, H#e$o#io %o'in$o, Ce#nando Ro$uian, "eve#ino Cape, and "i!to de la C#u:.
3 ,

"ection +, A#ticle E22, Philippine Constitution. "ection )47l9, A#ticle E22, id. Cast#illo, &a( on Natu#al Resou#ces, ).6+ ed., p. ))0.

Castillo vs. Rod#i$ue:, &-)+)0., -une 33, ).86. See also1 E!tensive Ente#p#ises vs. "a#b#o J Co., 2nc., &-33,0, J &-33,08, Ma )8, ).88.
8

*a' vs. Bach#ach Moto# Co., 2nc., &-),8++, 5ctobe# ,), ).84@ Calo vs. Cue#tes, &)86,+, -une 3., ).83.
+

*a' vs. Bach#ach, supra@ "ua#e: vs. Re es, &-)..30, Ceb#ua# 30, ).8,@ E!tensive Ente#p#ises vs. "a#b#o J Co., supra, citin "ection )47l9 of A#ticle E22 of the Constitution.
0

Mondano vs. "ilvosa, .+ Phil. )/,, )/0@ also quoted in *a' vs. Bach#ach, supra@ E!tensive Ente#p#ises vs. "a#b#o J Co., supra.
.

Po(e#s to suspend the (#it of habeas corpus, to p#oclai' 'a#tial la( >"ec. )4 739, A#t. E22, Phil. Constitution? and to $#ant #ep#ieves, co''utations, and pa#dons and #e'it fines and fo#feitu#es >"ec. )4 789, ide.? 'entioned in Eillena vs. "ec#eta# of 2nte#io#, 8+ Phil. /6), /83- /8,.
)4

E!ecutive 5#de# ./, 5ctobe# /, )./+, p#ovides in "ec. 3+1 that =>t?he E!ecutive "ec#eta# . . . shall e!e#cise such po(e#s, functions, and duties as 'a be assi$ned to hi' b the P#esident f#o' ti'e to ti'e . . .=
))

E!tensive Ente#p#ises vs. "a#b#o J Co., supra. See1 Pa<o vs. A$o, &-)6/)/, -une ,4, ).84, and citations at footnote 0 he#ein. See also1 Ma#tin, Revised Ad'inist#ative Code, ).83 ed., Eol. 222, pp. 080-08..
)3

Eillena vs. "ec#eta# of 2nte#io#, supra, at p. /8,. &f. KAalina vs. 5#icio, ., Phil. )4+8, )404.
), )/

Po:on vs. E!ecutive "ec#eta# 7C.A.9, 66 5.H. No )0, pp. ,,43, ,,46.

CERNAN%5, J., concu##in$1

)

A#ticle E22, "ection )4 7)9 of the Constitution. "ec. /, Co''on(ealth Act No. ./) 7).,89. &-)+)8., Nove'be# ,4, ).8,. Planas v. Hil 7).,.9, 8. Phil. 63, at p. +8.

8+ Phil. /6) 7).,.9. As fa# as p#esidential po(e# of supe#vision ove# local $ove#n'ents is conce#ned, its autho#it has been i'pai#ed b /ebron v. "eyes, )4/ Phil. )+6 7).609.
6