TONDO MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL. VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007
Justice Minita Chico-Nazario

FACTS:
This case is a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the decision of the Court of
Appeals denying the petition for the nullification of the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA)
Philippines 1999-2004 of the DOH; and E.O. No. 102 Redirecting the Functions and Operations of
the Department of Health issued by then Pres. Joseph Estrada.
The petitioners originally filed this case to the supreme court on August 15, 2001.
However, SC referred the petition to CA for appropriate action.
The petitioners alleged that the implementation of the HSRA is void for violating the
provisions in ART II, SEC. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18; ART III, SEC. 1; ART XIII, SEC. 11 and 14; ART XV,
SEC 1 and 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which directly and indirectly pertain to the duty of the
state to protect and promote people’s right to health and well-being. They claim that the
implementation of the said agenda resulted to the inaccessibility to free medicine and free
medical services of the economically disadvantaged Filipinos.
They also alleged the issuance of E.O. No. 102 should be void on the ground that Pres.
Estrada acted in excess of his authority and that the reorganization of government entities should
be under the powers of the Legislative department.
The petitioners, furthermore contended, that new employees were hired and appointed
to positions they are not qualified, despite the fact that the objective of the agenda was to cut
back costs.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition on the basis of several procedural defects: 1)
Petitioners failed to show capacity or authority to sign the certification of non-forum shopping;
2) Petitioners failed to show any particularized interest for bringing the suit, nor any direct or
personal injury sustained or were in the immediate danger of sustaining; 3) the Petition, brought
before the Supreme Court on 15 August 1999, was filed out of time, or beyond 60 days from the
time the reorganization methods were implemented in 2000; and 4) certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus will not lie where the President, was not acting as a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
In addition to these procedural defects, the CA also resolved the substantial issues raised
by the petitioners. The court ruled that HSRA cannot be declared void for violating the
aforementioned provisions of the Constitution for these are mere principles and are not self-
executory and nature. Thus, they are not judicially enforceable Constitutional rights and can only
serve as guidelines for legislation.
The court also ruled that the issuance of EO No. 102 was within the powers of the
President as stated in Sec 17 Art VII of the Constitution.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but was again denied so they decided
to file the petition to the SC. They raised that the CA erred in ruling that their petition is not
meritorious and moved that the decision be reviewed by the higher court.
ISSUE:
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the provisions in ART II, SEC. 5, 9, 10, 11, 13 and
18; ART III, SEC. 1; ART XIII, SEC. 11 and 14; ART XV, SEC 1 and 3(2) of the 1987
Constitution are not self-executory.
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that the issuance of EO No. 102 is within the powers
of the President
- Whether the HSRA and EO No. 102 should be declared null and void.

RULING:

The Supreme held the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that the aforementioned
provisions are indeed non self-executory. The SC further cited different cases supporting this
ruling such as Tañada vs. Angara where the court specifically set apart the sections found under
Article II of the 1987 Constitution as non self-executing and ruled that such broad principles need
legislative enactments before they can be implemented.
Regarding the validity of EO No. 102, the SC ruled that the President is indeed acting
within his powers for Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, clearly states: “The
president shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices.” The court also
cited Sec. 31, Book III, Ch 10 of EO No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987 which
detailed the power of the President to reorganize his office. The explanation to this power was
given in the case of Domingo vs. Zamora which sathe law grants the President the power to
reorganize the Office of the President in recognition of the recurring need of every President to
reorganize his or her office to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.
Furthermore, the SC ruled that the petitioners allegations are not sufficient to declare
HSRA and EO No. 102 null and void. They were too general and unsubstantiated by the records.
The persons involved are not identified and certain circumstances are not specified.
The court raised the rule on constitutional questions of whether the party has substantive
claim on the issue is of transcendental importance. After careful scrutiny the SC finds that the
petitioners’ claim shows no merit.