Pichay vs ODESLA
- Investigative and Adjudication
Division (2012)
Pamela M Tambalo
Constitutional Law 1
FACTS:
On April 2001, Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued E.O 12
creating the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and vesting
it with the power to investigate or hear administrative cases or
complaints for possible graft and corruption, among others, against
presidential appointees and to submit its report and
recommendations to the President.
On November 2010, Pres. Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued E.O 13,
abolishing the PAGC and transferring its functions to the Office of the
Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more
particularly to its newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory
Division (IAD).
FACTS:
On April 2011, respondent Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima filed before
the IAD-ODESLA a complaint affidavit for grave misconduct against
Petitioner Prospero Pichay, Jr. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), as well as other incumbent
members of the LWUA Board of Trustees which arose from the purchase
by the LWUA of 445,377 shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc.
Thereafter, petitioner received an Order signed by Exec. Sec. Paquito
Ochoa, Jr. requiring him and his corespondents to submit their respective
written explanations under oath.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss given that a case involving the same
transaction and charge of grave misconduct is already pending before the
Office of the Ombudsman.
The President has continuing authority to reorganize the Executive
ISSUE/RULING: Department as provided by E.O. 292 (Admin Code of 1987) under Sec
31 in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.
Section 31, E.O. 292 sanctions the following actions:
1. Whether or not E.O.
13 is unconstitutional 1. Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President
Proper, including the immediate Offices by abolishing or merging units
for usurping the power thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another.
of the legislature to 2. Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other
create a public office? Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office of the
President from other Departments and Agencies.
3. Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other
Department or Agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the
President from other departments or agencies.
Clearly, the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a
division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within the
prerogative of the President under his continuing delegated legislative
authority to reorganize his own office pursuant to EO 292.
ISSUE/RULING: The President has the power to recommend the budget
necessary for the operation of the Government, which implies
that he has the necessary authority to evaluate and determine
2. Whether or not E.O. the structure that each government agency in the executive
13 is unconstitutional department would need to operate in the most economical and
for usurping the power efficient manner.
of the legislature to Under Section 78 of RA 9970 or the General Appropriations Act
of 2010 of the President’s Authority to “direct changes in the
appropriate funds? organizational units or key positions in any department or
agency” xxx “even to the extent of modifying and realigning
appropriations for that purpose.”
The President is also given the constitutional authority to
augment any item in the General Appropriations Law using the
savings in other items of the appropriation for his office.
There is no usurpation of the legislature's power to appropriate
funds when the President simply allocates the existing funds
previously appropriated by Congress for his office.
ISSUE/RULING: No, As the OSG aptly explained in its Comment, while the term
"adjudicatory" appears part of its appellation, the IAD-ODESLA
cannot try and resolve cases, its authority being limited to the
3. Whether or not E.O. conduct of investigations, preparation of reports and submission
of recommendations.
13 is unconstitutional
Under E.O. 12, the PAGC was given the authority to
for usurping the power
"investigate or hear administrative cases or complaints against
of Congress to all presidential appointees in the government" and to "submit its
delegate Quasi- report and recommendations to the President." The IAD-
Judicial powers to ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the
President, not having the power to settle controversies and
administrative adjudicate cases.
agencies? The President's authority to issue E.O. 13 and constitute the
IAD-ODESLA as his fact-finding investigator is valid under
Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution w/c provides:
The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be
faithfully executed.
ISSUE/RULING:
The IAD-ODESLA did not encroach upon the Ombudsman's
primary jurisdiction when it took cognizance of the complaint
4. Whether or not E.O.
affidavit filed against him notwithstanding the earlier filing of
13 is unconstitutional criminal and administrative cases involving the same charges
for encroaching upon and allegations before the Office of the Ombudsman.
the powers of the The primary jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate and
Ombudsman? prosecute cases refers to criminal cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan and not to administrative cases. It is only in the
exercise of its primary jurisdiction that the Ombudsman may, at
any time, take over the investigation being conducted by
another investigatory agency.
The case filed before the IAD-ODESLA is an administrative
disciplinary case for grave misconduct, the primary jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman to prevent the IAD-ODESLA from
proceeding with its investigation shouldn’t be invoked.
ISSUE/RULING:
Pichay’s right to due process was not violated when the IAD-
ODESLA took cognizance of the administrative complaint
5. Whether or not E.O. against him since he was given sufficient opportunity to oppose
13 is unconstitutional the formal complaint filed by Secretary Purisima.
for violating the In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the
guarantee of due accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements
process and equal of due process which simply means having the opportunity to
protection clause? explain one’s side.
As long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his
side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are
satisfactorily complied. The records show that petitioner was
issued an Order requiring him to submit his written explanation
under oath with respect to the charge of grave misconduct filed
against him. His own failure to submit his explanation despite
notice defeats his subsequent claim of denial of due process.
Thank you!
