A Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol has declared two executive orders issued by
Governor Erico Aristotle Aumentado as unconstitutional and void.
In a court decision dated October 31, 2023, RTC-Branch 2 Presiding Judge Jennifer
Chavez-Marcos has granted the petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction filed
by Larry M. Pamugas, former officer-in-charge of the provincial agriculture office.
Pamugas challenged the legality of Executive Order No. 2 dated July 30, 2022,
which established the Office of Governance, Accountability and Review (OGAR),
and Executive Order No. 2-A dated December 16, 2022, which expanded the
coverage of OGAR.
OGAR is a body composed of five members appointed by the governor, with the
power to investigate, audit, review and recommend actions on any matter involving
the provincial government and its officials and employees.
Pamugas argued that the creation and expansion of OGAR violated the principle of
separation of powers and usurped the legislative authority of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan (SP), the provincial legislative body.
He also claimed that OGAR was a tool for political harassment and intimidation, as it
targeted political allies and supporters who were either suspended, dismissed or
charged with administrative cases.
The court agreed with Pamugas and ruled that the executive orders were issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The court said that the governor had no power to create or expand OGAR, as it was
not among the powers granted to him by the Local Government Code.
The court also said that OGAR encroached on the functions of the SP, the
Commission on Audit (COA), the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission,
which are the proper bodies to exercise oversight, audit, investigation and
disciplinary powers over the provincial government.
The court further said that OGAR violated the due process and equal protection
rights of the provincial officials and employees, as it did not provide for any rules of
procedure, standards of evidence, or remedies for appeal.
The court issued a writ of prohibition to enjoin the governor and the members of
OGAR from implementing the executive orders and a writ of injunction to restrain
them from conducting any further investigation, audit, review or recommendation
involving the provincial government.
The court also ordered the governor and the members of OGAR to cease and desist
from harassing, intimidating or coercing the petitioner and his allies and supporters.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents argued that the petition failed to show a prima facie existence of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the governor in the issuance of the executive
orders, much less on the part of the other respondents who acted as members of
OGAR.
They also contended that the petition failed to show the existence of an actual case
or controversy, as the petitioner did not allege any specific injury or violation of his
rights caused by the executive orders.
They further asserted that the petitioner failed to show that he had the requisite locus
standi or legal standing to file the petition, as he did not demonstrate any personal or
direct interest in the outcome of the case.
They additionally maintained that the petitioner failed to show that the constitutional
question raised in the petition was the very lis mota or crux of the controversy, as the
main issue was the validity of the executive orders and not their constitutionality.
They also pointed out that the petitioner and his allies and supporters were facing an
administrative complaint filed by concerned citizens and taxpayers, who accused
them of corruption, malversation, nepotism and other irregularities in the provincial
government.
They claimed that the petition was a mere ploy to delay or evade the investigation
and prosecution of the administrative complaint.
They urged the court to dismiss the petition for being premature, improper and
baseless.
PETITIONER INVOKES
The petitioner, on the other hand, defended his petition and invoked the
constitutional power of the court to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.
He cited the provision of the Constitution that states that judicial power includes the
duty of the courts of justice not only “to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable” but also “to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.”
Pamugas also cited the rulings of the Supreme Court that clarified that petitions for
certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and
to review and/or prohibit or nullify the acts of legislative and executive officials.
He argued that the court had the duty and the obligation to declare the executive
orders unconstitutional or null and void, as they violated the principle of separation of
powers, the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative power, and the rights of the
provincial officials and employees.
He also argued that he had the legal standing to file the petition, as he was a former
head of the provincial agriculture and a concerned citizen who was affected by the
executive orders.
He also argued that the constitutional question was the very lis mota of the
controversy, as the validity of the executive orders depended on their conformity with
the Constitution.
Pamugas further argued that the administrative complaint against him and his allies
and supporters was irrelevant and immaterial to the petition, as it did not affect the
legality of the executive orders.
Court explains its jurisdiction over the petition
The court, in its decision, also explained its jurisdiction over the petition, despite the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires the filing of such petitions in the lower
courts first.
The court cited the Constitution and the Rules of Court that expressly vested the
court with original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction,
among others.
The court also cited the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that stated that the court
has “full discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special
civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling reasons or if
warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically raised in the petition,
such as when what is raised is a pure question of law.”
The court said that the petition involved a pure question of law, as it questioned the
constitutionality and validity of the executive orders issued by the governor.
The court also said that the petition involved a matter of public interest and
transcendental importance, as it affected the rights and welfare of the provincial
officials and employees, as well as the general public.
The court also said that the petition was filed in good faith and with utmost urgency,
as the petitioner sought to prevent the further implementation of the executive orders
that he claimed were illegal and oppressive.
The court noted that the petition did not involve any factual questions that would
require the presentation of evidence or the referral to the lower courts.
It said that the petition was not intended to bypass the hierarchy of courts, but to
seek the immediate and appropriate relief from the court.
The court pointed out that the petition was not barred by the pendency of the
administrative complaint against the petitioner and his allies and supporters, as the
issues in the petition were distinct and separate from the issues in the complaint.
It added that the petition was not premature, improper or baseless, as the petitioner
complied with the requisites of judicial review and showed sufficient grounds to merit
the grant of the writs of certiorari, prohibition and injunction.
The court, therefore, asserted its jurisdiction over the petition and affirmed its
decision to nullify the executive orders of the governor. (TO BE CONTINUED)