G.R. No. 225301 , June 2, 2020
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION GROUP, MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, AND THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICE, PETITIONERS, VS. DANILO B. ENRIQUEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a dispute regarding the disciplinary powers of a cabinet secretary over a presidentially appointed subordinate. The ponencia (main decision) held that for presidential appointees, the power to impose penalties resides solely with the President, and cabinet members are limited to investigating and recommending penalties.

ISSUE

Whether a cabinet secretary, as an alter-ego of the President, has the power to discipline and impose penalties on a presidentially appointed subordinate, or if such power is limited to investigation and recommendation only.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in a Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs in the result but dissents from the ponencia’s limitation of a cabinet secretary’s power. The opinion rules that a cabinet secretary retains the power to discipline both presidential and non-presidential appointees. This power is derived from the Administrative Code and the doctrine of qualified political agency. The secretary’s disciplinary decision remains subject to the President’s control and may be altered, modified, nullified, or set aside by the President. The power to discipline a subordinate is not of such exceptional import that it cannot be delegated, unlike powers such as declaring martial law or suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Executive orders creating bodies like the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission did not repeal the cabinet secretary’s disciplinary authority under the Administrative Code. Limiting the secretary to only investigatory and recommendatory functions would deny a respondent the remedy of an appeal and improperly restrict the President’s alter-ego.