Ang Nars Party-List v. Executive Secretary
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the minimum base pay for nurses working in public health institutions. Republic Act No. 9173 (Philippine Nursing Act of 2002) mandated that this minimum base pay should not be lower than Salary Grade 15. However, Joint Resolution No. 4, approved in 2009, authorized the President to modify the compensation and position classification system of civilian personnel, and Executive Order No. 811, issued to implement this resolution, set the entry-level salary grade for Nurse I positions at Salary Grade 11. 2. Procedural History: Ang Nars Party-List and Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) initiated this case by filing a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court. Prior to this, Representative Leah Primitiva G. Samaco-Paquiz had inquired with the Department of Health and the Department of Budget and Management regarding the non-implementation of Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173. The DOH referred the matter to the DBM, which explained that while the entry level for nurses was upgraded to Salary Grade 11, implementing Salary Grade 15 would distort hierarchical relationships and incur significant costs. The Department of Justice declined to provide a legal opinion, suggesting the matter be elevated to the DBM Secretary. Dissatisfied with these responses, the petitioners brought their case directly to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and mandamus, assailing the validity of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 811 and praying for the Court to compel the respondents to implement Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173. They argue that Joint Resolution No. 4 did not grant the President the authority to amend R.A. No. 9173 and lower the nurses' minimum base pay to Salary Grade 11. They contend that Executive Order No. 811, by purporting to repeal Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173, exceeded the authority granted by Joint Resolution No. 4 and violated the principle of non-diminution of salaries. The petition raises issues of grave abuse of discretion by the respondents in downgrading the salary grade and disregarding the provisions of R.A. No. 9173.
Issue(s)
(1) Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded the authority granted by Joint Resolution No. 4 when they downgraded the salary grade for government nurses in Executive Order No. 811; (2) Whether Joint Resolution No. 4 (Series of 2009) of the Senate and the House of Representatives amended Section 32 of the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002; (3) Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in asserting that the entry level for government nurses should only be Salary Grade 11 and disregarding the provisions of Republic Act No. 9173.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition in part by declaring that Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173 remains valid, and the provisions of paragraph 16 of Joint Resolution No. 4 dated 28 July 2008 and Section 6 of Executive Order No. 811 dated 17 June 2009, purporting to amend or repeal Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173, are declared VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, the Court DISMISSED the petition in part by refusing to compel the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Budget and Management, and the Secretary of Health to implement Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in downgrading the salary grade for government nurses in EO No. 811, as the authority to modify compensation systems was granted by JR No. 4. However, the Court found that JR No. 4 and EO No. 811, in purporting to amend or repeal Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173, were void and unconstitutional because only a law passed by Congress can amend or repeal another law, and a Joint Resolution does not have the force of law in this regard. The Court emphasized that EO No. 811, being a mere presidential issuance, cannot amend or repeal a prior law. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that Joint Resolution No. 4 (Series of 2009) did not amend Section 32 of the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9173). The Court explained that under the Constitution, only a bill can become a law, and a joint resolution, even if it follows the procedure for enacting a bill, does not have the force of law to amend or repeal existing statutes. The Court distinguished between the procedural rules of Congress and the constitutional mandate that only bills can become laws, noting that the Constitution's requirements for lawmaking, including presentment to the President and the veto power, apply specifically to bills. On Issue 3: The Court found that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in asserting that the entry level for government nurses should only be Salary Grade 11, as this was based on EO No. 811, which was issued pursuant to JR No. 4. However, the Court declared that the provisions of EO No. 811 and JR No. 4 that purported to amend or repeal Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173 were void and unconstitutional. Despite upholding the validity of Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173, the Court dismissed the prayer to compel respondents to implement it, citing the constitutional mandate that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law, and that the power to appropriate public funds rests solely with Congress.
Main Doctrine
A law mandating a specific salary grade remains valid even if subsequently purported to be amended or repealed by a Joint Resolution or Executive Order, as only a law passed by Congress can amend or repeal a prior law. Furthermore, the implementation of any law requiring appropriation of public funds cannot be compelled by the judiciary, as the power to appropriate is exclusively vested in Congress under the Constitution.