Published — July 03, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
“Officers in control lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are not followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves.”
(Judge Mercedes Dadole, et. al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002)
After reading “What is the President’s power of control and supervision?”, read also “What is the so-called Executive Power of the President?”
-
The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
-
Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
-
The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays.
Control generally means the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of the former. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Loving Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No. 211450, July 23, 2018.)
The law says:
Article VII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
“Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Jurisprudence says:
In the case of Mark Anthony Zabal, et. al. v. Rodrigo Duterte (G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019), the Supreme Court has defined control in the following manner:
“The power of control refers to the authority to direct the performance of a duty, restrain the commission of acts, review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units, and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs.”
What is the difference between the power of control and the power of supervision?
Jurisprudence says:
“The power of supervision involves oversight of a subordinate to ensure that the rules are followed. On the other hand, the power of control is broader as it involves laying down the actual rules to be followed. If the rules are not followed, the power of control allows the controlling officer to order that the act be done or undone, or even to supplant the subordinate’s act with his or her own act.” (Office of the Ombudsman v. Loving Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No. 211450, July 23, 2018.)
“Officers in control lay down the rules in the performance or accomplishment of an act. If these rules are not followed, they may, in their discretion, order the act undone or redone by their subordinates or even decide to do it themselves. On the other hand, supervision does not cover such authority. Supervising officials merely see to it that the rules are followed, but they themselves do not lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are followed.” (Judge Mercedes Dadole, et. al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002)
What is the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency?
Corollary to the power of control of the president is so-called alter-ego doctrine, or the doctrine of qualified political agency.
In the case of DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees (G.R. No. 149724, August 19, 2003), the Supreme Court held that:
“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 or 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.”
In the case of Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel v Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. 181293, February 23, 2015), the Supreme Court held that:
“The doctrine of qualified political agency declares that, save in matters on which the Constitution or the circumstances require the President to act personally, executive and administrative functions are exercised through executive departments headed by cabinet secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the acts of the President unless disapproved by the latter.”
What is the power of general supervision of the president?
The law says:
Under Chapter III, Article I, Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991, the President shall exercise supervision over local government units, to wit:
Section 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units. –
(a) Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to barangays.
xxx”
Jurisprudence says:
In the case of Judge Mercedes Dadole, et. al. v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002), the Supreme Court held that:
“Under our present system of government, executive power is vested in the President. The members of the Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter-egos. As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President, at whose will and behest they can be removed from office; or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. In contrast, the heads of political subdivisions are elected by the people. Their sovereign powers emanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. By constitutional fiat, they are subject to the President’s supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. By the same token, the President may not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the Constitution and the law.
Clearly then, the President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he or she finds that the latter has acted contrary to law. This is the scope of the President’s supervisory powers over local government units. Hence, the President or any of his or her alter egos cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned local government unit acts within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive therefore by the President or any of his or her alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a local government unit is a patent nullity because it violates the principle of local autonomy and separation of powers of the executive and legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]