Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Blaquera Vs Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Administrative Orders 29 and 268 issued by the President regarding productivity incentive benefits for government employees. AO 29 limited incentive benefits to P1,000 for 1992 and required refunds for amounts paid in excess. It was an exercise of the President's constitutional power to control executive departments and agencies. The President has the authority to review, modify, or nullify actions of subordinates in the executive branch in order to regulate benefits, prevent dissatisfaction among employees, and commit limited government resources equally.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Blaquera Vs Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi
    86 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Administrative Orders 29 and 268 issued by the President regarding productivity incentive benefits for government employees. AO 29 limited incentive benefits to P1,000 for 1992 and required refunds for amounts paid in excess. It was an exercise of the President's constitutional power to control executive departments and agencies. The President has the authority to review, modify, or nullify actions of subordinates in the executive branch in order to regulate benefits, prevent dissatisfaction among employees, and commit limited government resources equally.

    Original Title

    Blaquera vs Alcala

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Administrative Orders 29 and 268 issued by the President regarding productivity incentive benefits for government employees. AO 29 limited incentive benefits to P1,000 for 1992 and required refunds for amounts paid in excess. It was an exercise of the President's constitutional power to control executive departments and agencies. The President has the authority to review, modify, or nullify actions of subordinates in the executive branch in order to regulate benefits, prevent dissatisfaction among employees, and commit limited government resources equally.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    Blaquera Vs Alcala

    Uploaded by

    Rochedale Colasi
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Administrative Orders 29 and 268 issued by the President regarding productivity incentive benefits for government employees. AO 29 limited incentive benefits to P1,000 for 1992 and required refunds for amounts paid in excess. It was an exercise of the President's constitutional power to control executive departments and agencies. The President has the authority to review, modify, or nullify actions of subordinates in the executive branch in order to regulate benefits, prevent dissatisfaction among employees, and commit limited government resources equally.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BLAQUERA VS. ALCALA G.R. NO.

    109406, SEPTEMBER 11, 1998

    FACTS: On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 which granted each official and
    employee of the government the productivity incentive benefits in a maximum amount
    equivalent to 30% of the employee’s one month basic salary but which amount not be less than
    P2, 000.00. Said AO provided that the productivity incentive benefits shall be granted only for
    the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including government boards of government-
    owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions, are strictly prohibited from granting
    productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 and future years pending the result of a
    comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres.
    The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government departments and
    agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres.
    Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in
    the maximum amount of P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO 268,
    enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approval of the President.
    Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices and agencies which authorized payment of
    productivity incentive bonus for the year 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause the
    refund of the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies of the
    government concerned caused the deduction from petitioners’ salaries or allowances of the
    amounts needed to cover the alleged overpayments.

    ISSUE: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in the valid exercise of presidential
    control over the executive departments

    HELD: The Pres. is the head of the government. Governmental power and authority are
    exercised and implemented through him. His power includes the control of executive
    departments as provided under Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution.
    Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer
    had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of
    the latter. The Pres. can, by virtue of his power of control, review, modify, alter or nullify any
    action or decision of his subordinate in the executive departments, bureau or offices under him.
    When the Pres. issued AO 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits, enjoining heads of
    government agencies from granting incentive benefits without approval from him and directing
    the refund of the excess over the prescribed amount, the Pres. was just exercising his power of
    control over executive departments.
    The Pres. issued subject AOs to regulate the grant of productivity incentive benefits and to
    prevent discontent, dissatisfaction and demoralization among government personnel by
    committing limited resources of government for the equal payment of incentives and awards.
    The Pres. was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the heads of the
    government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate
    clearance from the Office of the Pres., thereby resulting in the uneven distribution of government
    resources.

    The President’s duty to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too, is his control of
    executive departments.

    You might also like