Antonio Carpio vs The Executive Secretary

FACTS: 206 SCRA 290 Political Law Control Power Doctrine of Qualified Political
Agency
In 1990, Republic Act No. 6975 entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES was passed. Antonio
Carpio, as a member of the bar and a defender of the Constitution, assailed the
constitutionality of the said law as he averred that it only interferes with the control
power of the president.
He advances the view that RA 6975 weakened the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) by limiting its power to administrative control over the PNP thus,
control remained with the Department Secretary under whom both the NPC and the
PNP were placed; that the system of letting local executives choose local police heads
also undermine the power of the president.
ISSUE: Whether or not the president abdicated its control power over the PNP and
NPC by virtue of RA 6975.
HELD: No. The President has control of all executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. This presidential power of control over the executive branch of government
extends over all executive officers from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk. Equally
well accepted, as a corollary rule to the control powers of the President, is the Doctrine
of Qualified Political Agency. As the President cannot be expected to exercise his
control powers all at the same time and in person, he will have to delegate some of
them to his Cabinet members.
Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all
executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department,
the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person on the exigencies of the situation demand that he
act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively
the acts of the Chief Executive.

Thus, and in short, the Presidents power of control is directly exercised by him over
the members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and
other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the executive department.
Additionally, the circumstance that the NAPOLCOM and the PNP are placed under the
reorganized DILG is merely an administrative realignment that would bolster a system
of coordination and cooperation among the citizenry, local executives and the integrated
law enforcement agencies and public safety agencies created under the assailed Act,
the funding of the PNP being in large part subsidized by the national government.

Chua vs. CSC and NIA [G.R. No. 88979. February 07, 1992]
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation
from the government service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization.
Deemed qualified to avail of its benefits are those enumerated in Sec. 2 of the Act.
Petitioner Lydia Chua believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the
program, filed an application with respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA)
which, however, denied the same; instead, she was offered separation benefits
equivalent to one half (1/2) month basic pay for every year of service commencing from
1980, or almost fifteen (15) years in four (4) successive governmental projects. A
recourse by petitioner to the Civil Service Commission yielded negative results, citing
that her position is co-terminous with the NIA project which is contractual in nature and
thus excluded by the enumerations under Sec.3.1 of Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No.
89-1, i.e. casual, emergency, temporary or regular employment. Petitioner appealed to
the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefits granted under Republic Act No.
6683.
HELD:
YES. Petition was granted.
RATIO:
Petitioner was established to be a co-terminous employee, a non-career civil servant,
like casual and emergency employees. The Supreme Court sees no solid reason why
the latter are extended benefits under the Early Retirement Law but the former are not.

It will be noted that Rep. Act No. 6683 expressly extends its benefits for early retirement
to regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees. But specifically excluded from
the benefits are uniformed personnel of the AFP including those of the PC-INP. It can be
argued that, expressio unius est exclusio alterius but the applicable maxim in this case
is the doctrine of necessary implication which holds that what is implied in a statute is
as much a part thereof as that which is expressed.
[T]he Court believes, and so holds, that the denial by the respondents NIA and CSC of
petitioners application for early retirement benefits under R.A. No. 6683 is
unreasonable, unjustified, and oppressive, as petitioner had filed an application for
voluntary retirement within a reasonable period and she is entitled to the benefits of said
law. In the interest of substantial justice, her application must be granted; after all she
served the government not only for two (2) years the minimum requirement under the
law but for almost fifteen (15) years in four (4) successive governmental projects.