GR 189028; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189028 ; July 16, 2013
NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
The case involves the conferment of the Order of National Artist. The National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) are mandated by law to promote, develop, and protect Philippine national culture and the arts, and are authorized to give awards to deserving Filipino artists. The two bodies jointly administer the National Artists Award. They adopted revised guidelines in September 2007 for the nomination, selection, and administration of the award. The guidelines established a National Artist Award Council of Experts tasked to screen nominees and recommend candidates to the NCCA and CCP Boards. Petitioners, a group of National Artists, professors, deans, and other cultural workers, challenged the conferment of the award on respondents Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose Caparas, Jose Moreno, and Francisco Manosa, alleging irregularities in the selection process.
ISSUE
The primary legal issue is whether the President of the Philippines has the authority to disregard the list of nominees recommended by the NCCA and CCP and to confer the Order of National Artist on individuals not included in, or ranked lower in, that list.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have unbridled authority to confer the Order of National Artist. The power to select National Artists is not an exclusive presidential prerogative. The law ( Republic Act No. 7356 and related issuances) has vested the NCCA and CCP with the specific mandate and expertise to administer the award, including the process of screening and recommending nominees. The President’s role is to affirm or confirm the choice made by these expert bodies. The Court found that the President’s act of conferring the award on individuals not recommended by the NCCA and CCP Boards, or altering the ranked list, constituted grave abuse of discretion. Such act violated the established process, undermined the integrity of the award, and deprived the other nominees of due process and equal protection. The conferment on the four respondents was declared null and void.