SC upholds EO 13 abolishing PAGC

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition of former Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) chairman Prospero Pichay Jr. to nullify Executive Order (EO) 13.

EO 13 abolishes the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and transfers its functions to the Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD) of the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA).

Pichay was investigated for grave misconduct by the IAD-ODESLA.

In a 22-page decision penned by Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the high tribunal said Pichay failed to prove the illegality of EO 13.

The SC said the abolition of the OAGC and the transfer of its functions is within the prerogative of the President under section 31 the Administrative Code of 1987 or EO 292.

EO 292 “vests in the President the authority to reorganize the offices under him in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency,” the high court said.

The SC added that both offices belong to the Office of the President.

EO 13 was a mere alteration of the administrative structure of ODESLA through the establishment of IAD, it said.

The SC added that the reorganization was done in good faith and for purposes of economy and efficiency. EO 13 does not usurp on the legislative power to appropriate funds, the high tribunal added.

“The President may augment any item in the General Appropriations Law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

“As such, the President is merely allocating the existing funds previously appropriated by Congress for his office,” said the high court.

IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and recommendatory body not vested with quasi-judicial powers since it did not have the power to settle controversies nor adjudicate cases, the court said.

It said EO 13 does not encroach on the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman because IAD-ODESLA only deals with administrative cases.

It did not also violate Pichay’s right to due process and equal protection, it said.

“In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process,” the ruling said.