University of the Philippines College of Law

Subject | Professor
Case Digest
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE: the president can reorganize the executive department (when done in good faith)
CASE Number (including date): 142801-802. July 10, 2001
CASE Name: EIIB v Zamora
Ponente sandoval-guttierrez

FACTS
Petitioners seek that EO 191 (deactivation of EIIB) and EO 223 (all EIIB personnel are separated
from office) unconstitutional.
1987 - Cory issued EO 127 creating the EIIB which gives it the following tasks:

Receive, gather and evaluate intelligence reports and information and evidence on the nature,
modes and extent of illegal activities affecting the national economy, such as, but not limited
to, economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, and dollar-salting, investigate the same and
aid in the prosecution of cases;
o Coordinate with external agencies in monitoring the financial and economic activities of
persons or entities, whether domestic or foreign, which may adversely affect national
financial interest with the goal of regulating, controlling or preventing said activities;
o Provide all intelligence units of operating Bureaus or Offices under the Ministry with the
general framework and guidelines in the conduct of intelligence and investigating works;
o Supervise, monitor and coordinate all the intelligence and investigation operations of the
operating Bureaus and Offices under the Ministry;
o Investigate, hear and file, upon clearance by the Minister, anti-graft and corruption cases
against personnel of the Ministry and its constituents units;
o Perform such other appropriate functions as may be assigned by the Minister or his deputies.
1989 cory issued Memorandum order 225 declaring that all smuggling cases outside the sol
jurisdiction of the BOC fall within EIIB
2000 Erap issued EO191 with the reason that most of the EIIBs functions are done by other
bureaus and agencies. He transferred the functions of EIIB to BOC and NBI
Erap also issued EO196 which is the presidential anti-smuggling task force ADUANA
EO223 was issued
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the president can reorganize the executive department
2. Whether or not the reorganization was valid
o

HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)

(1) Yes. It is argued that the power to create and abolish government offices lies in the
constitution, the legislature and the authority of law. However, multiple laws allow the president
to reorganize the executive department.

Firstly, reorganization was defined by EO 292 sec 31 (admin code of 1987) which is the
power of the president to reduce, consolidate and abolish offices in the executive
department
o RA 7695 sec 48 (GAA 1993) heads of bureaus can identify offices that can be scaled
down, phased out or abolished
o Same, sec 62 Offices can be abolished only by law or by the president
o PD 1772 [order by marcos that was not repealed(considered active)] allows the
president to reorganize national government
o RA 8745sec 77 (GAA 1999) (this is the most important) used by respondent states that
Unless otherwise provided by law or directed by the President of the Philippines, no
changes in key positions or organizational units in any department or agency shall be
authorized in their respective organizational structures and funded from appropriations
provided by this Act.
(2)Yes: petitioners say the reorganization was done in bad faith because it was only done to make
way for task force aduana. This is not the accurate.
o RA 6656 gives the evidences for bad faith in removal from civil service
there was increase in positions in an office
a similar office was created
replacements by less qualified candidates were made
same functions as the abolished office was given to a new office
violated orders of suspension
o Task force Aduana was created for effieciency
It hired no new employees since it employs only intelligence member s of the
AFP and intelligence officers of other bureaus.
Budget for Aduana is significantly lower (50M) as opposed to EIIB (200M)
It has more powers specifically that of search, seizure and arrest as well as
investigation of ill-gotten wealth
RULING:
Wherefore the petition is denied EO 191 and 223 are VALID
o