G.R. No.

L-27524 July 31, 1970

JOSE C. TECSON, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. RAFAEL SALAS Executive
Secretary, HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, HON. MARCIANO D. BAUTISTA, Undersecretary of Public
Works and Communications, ALEJANDRO B. DELENA, Officer-In-Charge of
the Bureau of Public Works, and Felix V. BAGTAS, Assistant Superintendent
of Dredging Bureau of Public Works, respondent-appellees.

Jose Magallanes was permitted to use and occupy a land used for pasture in Davao.
The said land was a forest zone which was later declared as an agricultural zone.
Magallanes then ceded his rights toLacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. (LMC) of which he is
a co-owner.
Jose Pao was a farmer who asserted his claim over the same piece of land. The
Director of Lands denied Paos request. The Secretary of Agriculture likewise
denied his petition hence it was elevated to the Office of the President.

Executive Secretary Juan Pajo ruled in favor of Pao. LMC averred that the earlier
decision of the Secretary of Agriculture is already conclusive hence beyond appeal.
He also averred that the decision of the Executive Secretary is an undue delegation
of power. The Constitution, LMC asserts, does not contain any provision whereby the
presidential power of control may be delegated to the Executive Secretary. It is
argued that it is the constitutional duty of the President to act personally upon the
matter.

ISSUE: Whether or not the power of control may be delegated to the Executive
Secretary.

HELD: Yes. It is true that as a rule, the President must exercise his constitutional
powers in person. However, the president may delegate certain powers to the
Executive Secretary at his discretion. The president may delegate powers which are
not required by the Constitution for him to perform personally. The reason for this
allowance is the fact that the resident is not expected to perform in person all the
multifarious executive and administrative functions. The office of the Executive
Secretary is an auxiliary unit which assists the President. The rule which has thus
gained recognition is that under our constitutional setup the Executive Secretary
who acts for and in behalf and by authority of the President has an undisputed
jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or even reverse any order that the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, including the Director of Lands, may issue.

The act of the Executive Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the President, shall
remain valid until reversed, disapproved, or reprobated by the President. In this
case, no reprobation was made hence the decision granting the land to Pao cannot
be reversed.