CASE TITLE: VIRGILIO ALMARIO, BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, et al., vs.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, et al
G.R. No. 189208
DATE: July 16, 2013
J. Leonardo-de Castro
DIGEST BY: John Michael Vida
TOPIC: THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT the Court, in passing on the merits of this case, asserts its
role as republican schoolmaster, a teacher in a vital national seminar, in order to prevent
recurrence of controversies similar to this one, as well as assure respect to the constitutional
and legal limitations of the powers of the Executive.
FACTS:
This case stems from the controversy surrounding the nomination of certain artists for the
2009 Order of National Artists. Petitioners Almario et al. allege that the NCCA Board of
Commissioners and the CCP Board of Trustees held a joint meeting to discuss the evaluation of
the 2009 Order of National Artists and the convening of the National Artist Award Secretariat.
The nomination period was set for September-December 2007, later extended until February
2008.
Eventually, the First Deliberation Panel for candidates for the Order of National Artists met on
April 2009, with a total of 87 nominees were considered during the deliberation, and a shortlist
of 32 names compiled. A second Deliberation Panel narrowed down the list to 13 names out of
the 32 on the shortlist. A Final Deliberation Panel composed of 30 members, including the
living National Artists, CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA Board of Commissioners further
reduced the 13 names to the final four list of names to be chosen as new National Artists.
The Final Four were as follows:
Name
Manuel Conde (+)
Ramon Santos
Lazaro Francisco
Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz

Art Field/Category
Film and Broadcast Arts
Music
Literature
Visual Arts

Number of Votes
26
19
15
15

A letter, signed by the NCCA Chairperson Vilma Labrador and CCP Director Nestor Jardin was
then sent to then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, submitting the 4 recommended names of
the NCCA and CCP for the Proclamation as 2009 National Artists. Said letter was forwarded by
the Office of the President to the Committee on Honors, a body created by E.O No. 26 Series
2003 to assist the President in evaluating nominations for recipients of Honors.
However, while the recommendation was given, the Office of the President also received
separate nominations from various sectors, cultural groups and individuals, endorsing the
Controversial Four (who are also the private respondents in this case) to the Order of National
Artists:

Cecile Guidote-Alvarez
Carlo Magno Jose Caparas (Carlo J. Caparas)
Francisco Maosa
Jose Moreno

The Committee on Honors purportedly processed these nominations and invited resource
persons to validate the qualifications of the nominees. Afterwards, the Committee submitted a
memorandum to President Arroyo recommending the conferment of the Order of National
Artists on the Final Four of the NCCA-CCP, as well as on the additional nominees GuidoteAlvarez, Caparas, Maosa and Moreno. Acting on this recommendation, Proclamation No. 1823
declaring Manuel Conde a National Artist was issued on June 30, 2009. Subsequently, on July 6,
2009, Proclamation Nos. 1824 to 1829 were issued declaring Lazaro Francisco, Federico
Aguilar-Alcuaz Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo Caparas, Francisco Maosa and Jose Moreno as
National Artists.

Upon these Proclamations by the President, Almario et al. instituted the petition for prohibition,
certiorari and injunction to the Supreme Court, praying that the Order of National Artists be
conferred to Dr. Ramon Santos, and that the conferment of the Order of National Artists for the
group of Carlo J. Caparas et al. be enjoined and declared to have been rendered in grave abuse
of discretion.
ISSUE/S:
1. [TOPIC] WON the Court may proceed with the reliefs of prohibition, certiorari, injunction,
restraining order, etc. as prayed for by the petitioners.
2. [MAIN ISSUE] WON the President may confer the title of the Order of National Artists without
the necessity of the recommendation coming from the NCCA and CCP.
HELD:
1. YES. While the Court may no longer proceed with prohibition and injunction, it may still act
on the prayer of the petitioners via the petition for certiorari (see explanation below).
2. NO. The President may not confer the title of the Order of National Artists without the
recommendation of the NCCA and CCP.
RATIO:
1. The Court held that the action for prohibition and injunction was of a preventive nature, and
therefore cannot be availed to restrain an act already fait accompli. Since the act has been
accomplished or consummated already, prohibition or injunction becomes moot. Nevertheless,
the Court held that it may still resolve its merits for the future guidance of both bench and bar.
Courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition, yet
evading review, citing Caneland Sugar Corporation vs. Alon.
The Court then proceeded to state that:
It is an opportune time for the Court to assert its role as republican schoolmaster,
a teacher in a vital national seminar. There are times when the controversy is of
such character that, to prevent its recurrence and to assure respect for constitutional
limitations, this Court must pass on the merits of a case. This is one such case. More
than being a teaching moment, this is not the first time that the Order of National
Artists was conferred in the manner that is being assailed in this case. If not addressed
here and now, there is great probability that the central question involved in this case
will haunt us again in the future. Every President may invoke absolute presidential
prerogative and thrust upon us National Artists after his or her own heart, in total
disregard of the advise of the CCP and the NCCA and the voice of the community of
artists, resulting to repeated episodes of indignation and uproar from the artists and
the public.
Furthermore, if not corrected, such an act would give rise to mischief and dangerous
precedent whereby those in the corridors of power could avoid judicial intervention and
review by merely speedily and stealthily completing the commission of an illegality.
The Court also noted that, on the basis of the petition for certiorari of Almario et al., the Court
may validly pass on the matter on WON the Controversial Fours proclamation as National
Artists were attended by grave abuse of discretion (GAD).
2. The Court then took note that the respective powers of the CCP Board of Trustees and NCCA
Board of Commissioners are clear with respect to the conferment of the Order of National
Artists. They jointly administer the said award, and upon recommendation or advice, the
President then confers the Order.
To recommend and to advise are synonymous. To recommend is to advise or counsel.
To advise is to give an opinion or counsel, or recommend a plan or course of action. The
word advise also states that it is discretionary or optional with the person addressed whether
he will act on such advice or not.

This was also explained in the cited case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Atty. Palma:
The power to recommend includes the power to give advice, exhortation or
indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character, not binding upon the
party to whom it is made.
The President, therefore, may or may not adopt the recommendation or advice of the NCCA
and the CCP Boards since the conferment of the Order is subject to the Presidents discretion.
Nevertheless, the Presidents discretion on the matter is not totally unfettered, nor the role of
the NCCA and the CCP Boards meaningless.
The Court then stated that discretion is not a free-spirited stallion that runs and roams
wherever it pleases but is reined in to keep it from straying. In other words, the Presidents
power must still be exercised in accordance with existing laws. Section 17, Article VII of the
Constitution prescribes faithful execution of the laws by the President:
Sec. 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
The Presidents discretion in the conferment of the Order of National Artists should be
exercised in accordance with the duty to faithfully execute the relevant laws. The faithful
execution clause is best construed as an obligation imposed on the President, not a separate
grant of power. It simply underscores the rule of law and, corollarily, the cardinal principle that
the President is not above the laws but is obliged to obey and execute them. It is also the
reason why the Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that administrative or executive acts,
order and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.
The powers granted to the NCCA and the CCP Boards in connection with the conferment of the
Order of National Artists by executive issuances were institutionalized by two laws: PD 208 and
RA 7356. Meanwhile, Proclamation No. 1144 constituted the CCP Board as the National Artists
Awards Committee and tasked it to administer the conferment of the category of National
Artist upon deserving Filipino artists with the mandate to draft the rules to guide its
deliberations in the choice of National Artists.
By virtue of the statutory mandates in connection with the conferment of the National Artist
Award, the NCCA and the CCP work together to jointly administer the National Artist Award.
They have reviewed the guidelines for the nomination, selection and administration of the
National Artist Award, created a National Artist Award Secretariat, centralized all financial
resources and management for the administration of the National Artist Award, and added
another layer to the selection process so that more members of the arts and culture sector of
the Philippines may be involved and participate in the selection of National Artists.
The Court, citing the case Spouses Almeda vs. CA, held that an administrative regulation
adopted pursuant to law has the force and effect of law. Thus, the rules, guidelines and policies
regarding the Order of National Artists jointly issued by the CCP Board of Trustees and the
NCCA pursuant to their respective statutory mandates have the force and effect of law. Until
set aside, they are binding upon executive and administrative agencies, including the President
himself/herself as chief executor of laws.
In view of the various stages of deliberation in the selection process and as a consequence of
his/her duty to faithfully enforce the relevant laws, the discretion of the President in the matter
of the Order of National Artists is confined to the names submitted to him/her by the NCCA and
the CCP Boards. This means that the President could not have considered conferment of the
Order of National Artists on any person not considered and recommended by the NCCA and the
CCP Boards. Furthermore, the authority of the Committee on Honors is limited to determining
whether the nominations submitted by a particular awards committee, in this case, the joint
NCCA and CCP Boards, have been tainted by abuse of discretion, and whether the nominees
are in good standing. Should the nominations meet these two criteria, the Committee on
Honors shall make a recommendation to the President for conferment of the

Applying this to the instant case, President Arroyo could not have properly awarded the Order
of National Artists to the Controversial Four as their names were not recommended by the
NCCA and the CCP Boards. Otherwise, not only will the stringent selection and meticulous
screening process be rendered futile, the respective mandates of the NCCA and the CCP Board
of Trustees under relevant laws to administer the conferment of Order of National Artists, draft
the rules and regulations to guide its deliberations, formulate and implement policies and
plans, and undertake any and all necessary measures in that regard will also become
meaningless.