100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 360 - 362 out of 812 pages.
the same may, on appeal to the President, be reviewed and reversed by the Executive Secretary [Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano, 21 SCRA 895]. Thus, in Gascon v. Arroyo, 178 SCRA 582, it was held that the Executive Secretary had the authority to enter into the Agreement to Arbitratewith ABS-CBN, since he was acting on behalf of the President who had the power to negotiate such agreement.ii) Applying this doctrine, the power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be delegated to his Cabinet Members exercising control over a particular executive department. Accordingly, in this case, the DENR Secretary can validly reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter ego of the President, is presumed to be the act of the President because the latter had notexpressly repudiated the same [DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees, supra.]. iii) But even if he is an alter-ego of the President, the DECS Secretary cannot invoke the Presidents immunity from suit in a case filed againsthim, inasmuch as the questioned acts are not those of the President [Gloria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000]. c) Appeal to the President from decisions of subordinate executive officers, including Cabinet members, completes exhaustion of administrative remedies [Tan v. Director of Forestry, 125 SCRA 302], except in the instances when the doctrine of qualified political agency applies, in which case the decision of the Cabinet Secretary carries the presumptive approval of the OUTLINE / REVIEWER IN POLITICAL LAW
298 Constitutional Law President, and there is no need to appeal the decision to the President in orderto complete exhaustion of administrative remedies [Kilusang Bayan, etc., v. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92], d) But the power of control may be exercised by the President only over the acts, not over the actor [Angangco v. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619]. e) The Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) is under the control of the Office of the President. All projects undertaken by SBMA involving P2- million or above require the approval of the President of the Philippines under LOI 620 [Hutchinson Ports Phils, Ltd. V. SBMA, G.R. No. 131367, August 31, 2000] . f) Power of control of Justice Secretary over prosecutors. In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, supra., it was reiterated that decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the Secretary of Justice who exercises the power of direct control and supervision over prosecutors. Review, as an act of supervision and control by the Justice Secretary, finds basis in the doctrine ofexhaustion of administrative remedies. This power may still be availed of despite the filing of a criminal information in Court, and in his discretion, the Secretary may affirm, modify or reverse the resolutions of his subordinates. The Crespo rulingdid not foreclose the Justice Secretarys power of review. Thus, where the Secretary