Digests

Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, was enacted to intensify the government's campaign against dangerous drugs. Section 36 of this Act mandated drug testing for various sectors of society. These provisions prompted challenges from different petitioners, questioning their validity on several constitutional grounds, leading to these consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

The mandatory drug testing requirement for candidates for public office (Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165) is unconstitutional because it imposes an additional qualification not found in the Constitution. Mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes (Sec. 36(f)) is also unconstitutional as it violates the right to privacy and the right against self-incrimination. However, mandatory random drug testing for students (Sec. 36(c)) and employees (Sec. 36(d)) is constitutional, being a reasonable exercise of the State's police power and, in the case of students, within the schools' in loco parentis authority, and for employees, a reasonable regulation for workplace safety.

E-PCIBank entered into a Contract for Services with HI, a company providing janitorial and messengerial services, which was renewed annually until 2001. When the contract finally expired, the bank bidded out its requirements to other agencies, leading to the pull-out of the petitioners from the bank's premises and their subsequent filing of illegal dismissal complaints.

Helpmate, Inc. is a legitimate independent job contractor because it possesses substantial capital and carries on a distinct business, meaning no employer-employee relationship exists between the principal bank and the contractor's employees; furthermore, the NLRC may validly consider evidence submitted for the first time on appeal to ascertain factual truths in labor cases.

The case arose from the long-standing armed conflict between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in Mindanao. Decades of negotiations aimed at achieving peace led to various agreements, including the 2001 GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace, which outlined security, rehabilitation, and ancestral domain aspects for further discussion. The MOA-AD represented the culmination of negotiations specifically on the Ancestral Domain aspect, intended to address historical grievances and establish a framework for Bangsamoro self-governance.

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) is unconstitutional and contrary to law because its provisions, particularly the creation of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) under an "associative" relationship, violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines, and the process of its negotiation failed to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirements for public consultation and the right to information. Furthermore, the Executive branch exceeded its authority by guaranteeing constitutional and legal amendments necessary for the MOA-AD's implementation, as such power rests solely with Congress and the sovereign people.

The case arose from the unique situation of Jennifer Cagandahan, who was born with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition that causes a person with female chromosomes (XX) to develop ambiguous genitalia and secondary male characteristics due to excessive production of male hormones. Despite being registered as female at birth, Cagandahan's physical development and self-perception aligned with the male gender, prompting her to seek legal recognition of her identity by petitioning to correct her birth certificate.

Where a person is biologically or naturally intersex, the determining factor in their gender classification for legal and civil registry purposes is what the individual, having reached the age of majority, reasonably thinks of their own sex, supported by medical evidence of their condition.

The case arose from a legislative inquiry conducted by respondent Senate Committees into the National Broadband Network (NBN) project, a government project awarded to Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE). Petitioner Romulo L. Neri, then Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), was a key figure in the evaluation of this project. During his testimony, he disclosed an alleged bribery attempt but invoked executive privilege when asked about his conversations with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo regarding the NBN project, specifically on three questions.

The claim of presidential communications privilege, when properly invoked by the President or through the Executive Secretary concerning communications with close advisors on matters quintessential to the President's duties and responsibilities, is presumptively valid and can only be overcome by a specific, demonstrated, and compelling need by the investigating legislative body that is critical to the exercise of its legislative functions, a burden which the respondent Senate Committees failed to discharge in this case.

Republic Act No. 9335, the Attrition Act of 2005, was enacted to improve the revenue-generation capabilities of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law established a system of rewards for officials and employees who exceed revenue targets and sanctions for those who fall short, funded by a Rewards and Incentives Fund and overseen by a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board for each agency. This legislative measure was part of broader tax reform efforts aimed at enhancing government revenue collection.

Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9335, creating a Joint Congressional Oversight Committee with the power to approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the law, is unconstitutional as it constitutes an encroachment on executive power (implementation of laws) and violates the principles of separation of powers, bicameralism, and the presentment clause. However, the remainder of RA 9335 is constitutional and remains in force and effect due to the law's separability clause.

The dispute originated from a labor issue where former security guards of the Bessang Pass Security Agency, the respondents, filed complaints against their employer, the petitioner, for non-payment of salaries and other benefits. To pursue their claims, they not only filed a case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but also sought the cancellation of the agency's license from the Philippine National Police (PNP), sending copies of their complaint to multiple government bodies.

The exercise of a legal right, such as filing complaints with appropriate government agencies to seek redress for grievances, does not give rise to liability for damages unless it is proven that such an act was done with malice or bad faith and with the intent to injure another, in violation of the principle of abuse of rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

The 1987 Constitution apportioned two legislative districts for Maguindanao, with the first district including Cotabato City and eight municipalities. Maguindanao is part of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), but Cotabato City, despite being in its first legislative district, is not part of ARMM, having voted against inclusion. Republic Act No. 9054, amending the ARMM Organic Act, granted the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces. This grant of power and its subsequent exercise led to the legal disputes in this case.

The power to create provinces and cities, which inherently includes the power to create legislative districts, is vested exclusively in Congress and cannot be delegated to the ARMM Regional Assembly; therefore, any province or city created by the ARMM Regional Assembly under such delegated authority is void.

The case arose from the negotiation of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement between the Philippines and Japan. Amidst concerns about transparency and the potential impact of the agreement on various national interests, petitioners sought access to the complete JPEPA documents, including the initial offers exchanged between the two countries during the negotiation phase, which the government had kept confidential.

Offers exchanged by parties during diplomatic negotiations for a treaty, such as the JPEPA, are covered by executive privilege, specifically the diplomatic negotiations privilege, and remain confidential even after the main treaty text is published, unless a sufficient showing of public interest or need to overcome the privilege is demonstrated by the requesting party.

The case arose from a criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed against the petitioner, Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes. The core issue that reached the Supreme Court revolved around whether the petitioner was barred by estoppel by laches from questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which tried and convicted him, given that he only raised the jurisdictional challenge for the first time during his appeal to the Court of Appeals.

A litigant is not estopped by laches from assailing the jurisdiction of a trial court over the subject matter for the first time on appeal if the challenge is made without unreasonable delay and the factual circumstances do not mirror the exceptional scenario of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, where the jurisdictional challenge was raised only after almost 15 years. The general rule that a court's lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, prevails, as jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be vested by consent or waiver of the parties.

The dispute arose from the death of a spinster who left her properties to her lifelong companion and other individuals through a notarial will, prompting her surviving collateral relatives (first cousins) to contest the will's validity in an attempt to inherit the estate via intestate succession.

The Supreme Court held that minor defects in the form of the attestation clause, such as an error in stating the exact number of pages, do not invalidate a notarial will if it is proven that the will was executed and attested in substantial compliance with the formalities of law, and in the absence of bad faith, forgery, fraud, or undue influence.

Margarita S. Mayores died single and without any ascending or descending heirs, survived only by collateral relatives, including her first cousin, the petitioner. Before her death, Margarita executed a will bequeathing her real and personal properties to several individuals, including her lifelong companion, the respondent, whom she also designated as executor. The petitioner sought letters of administration for the estate, while the respondent sought the probate of the will, leading to a consolidated legal battle over the will's validity.

An error in the attestation clause regarding the total number of pages of a will does not invalidate the instrument if the pages are correlatively lettered and the evidence shows substantial compliance with the formal requirements of Article 805 of the Civil Code, provided there is no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or undue influence.

The case arose from the issuance of LOI No. 1465 by then-President Ferdinand Marcos, which mandated the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) to include a P10 capital recovery component (CRC) per bag in its fertilizer pricing formula. This CRC was to be collected until adequate capital was raised to make Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), a private corporation, financially viable. Fertiphil Corporation, another private entity engaged in the fertilizer business, paid these levies and, after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, sought a refund from PPI, contending the LOI was unconstitutional.

Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1465, which imposed a capital recovery component on the sale of fertilizers to benefit Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), is unconstitutional because it violates the public purpose requirement inherent in the power of taxation, as the levy was designed to aid a private enterprise rather than serve a public interest.

Petitioner Renne Enrique Bier, an electronics technician based in Saudi Arabia, and respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier married after a six-month long-distance courtship. For the first three years of their marriage, the relationship was positive, with the respondent described as a sweet, loving, and caring wife. The couple maintained residences in both the Philippines and Saudi Arabia, shuttling between the two countries to spend time together. However, after three years, the respondent's behavior allegedly changed drastically, leading to the eventual breakdown of the marriage and her departure for the United States, prompting the petitioner to file for nullity.

A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code requires clear and convincing proof of the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of the alleged incapacity; failure to establish these three essential characteristics, especially the root cause of the disorder and its existence at the inception of the marriage, is fatal to the petition, even if the party's post-marital behavior is shown to be irresponsible or neglectful.

The case arose from the political controversy surrounding the "Hello Garci" tapes, which allegedly contained a wiretapped phone conversation between then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a high-ranking COMELEC official, purportedly discussing the rigging of the 2004 national election results. Following the public emergence of these tapes, the Secretary of Justice and the NTC issued warnings to the media against their dissemination, citing potential violations of the Anti-Wiretapping Act and program standards for broadcast media.

Governmental warnings or press statements made by officials in their official capacity that threaten sanctions for the publication or broadcast of specific content, without satisfying the clear and present danger test, constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech and of the press.

The dispute arose when a son discovered that his deceased father's purported last will and testament, which excluded him from the bulk of the inheritance, contained glaring formal defects and allegedly forged signatures, prompting him to file an administrative complaint against the lawyer who notarized the document.

A notarial will attested by only two witnesses and containing a defective acknowledgment lacking the proper, valid residence certificates of the testator and witnesses is void, and a notary public who notarizes such an instrument is guilty of professional misconduct for failing to observe the strict solemnities prescribed by the Civil Code and the Notarial Law.

The case arose after the "Oakwood Incident" on July 27, 2003, where over 300 armed soldiers, led by junior AFP officers including petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV, took over the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City, demanding the resignation of the President and other key officials. Following their surrender, Trillanes was charged with coup d'etat and remained in detention. While detained, he ran for and won a seat in the Senate in the May 2007 elections.

A detention prisoner, even if an elected public official like a Senator, cannot be allowed to leave detention to attend legislative sessions or perform other official functions outside their place of confinement, as the fact of lawful detention inherently curtails rights and privileges, including the full exercise of civil and political rights associated with public office, especially when bail has been denied due to strong evidence of guilt for a non-bailable offense.

During the Marcos administration, government financial institutions granted loans at the behest of high officials to cronies, often under-collateralized and to undercapitalized entities, leading to significant losses for the government; post-1986 EDSA Revolution, efforts to recover such ill-gotten wealth prompted the creation of investigative bodies, including the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans under Administrative Order No. 13 in 1992 to inventory and recommend recovery actions for these loans.

The prescriptive period for violations of Republic Act No. 3019 in behest loan cases commences from the date of discovery by the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans in 1992, not from the commission of the acts, and Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 are not ex post facto laws as they are not penal in nature.

Petitioner Rommel Silverio, born anatomically male, identified as a female from childhood and felt "trapped in a man's body." After consulting with doctors, he underwent hormone therapy, breast augmentation, and ultimately, a sex reassignment surgery in Thailand. Living as a female and engaged to be married to a man, he sought to have his public records, specifically his birth certificate, reflect his new identity and physical state by changing his first name and sex entry.

Philippine law does not permit a person who has undergone sex reassignment surgery to change their name and sex as recorded in their birth certificate to align with their new physical characteristics, as there is no statute that recognizes or governs the effects of such a procedure.

Executive Order No. 51, "The Milk Code," was issued in 1986 to give effect to Article 11 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), aiming to protect and promote breastfeeding. Over the years, the World Health Assembly (WHA) adopted various resolutions recommending stricter measures for marketing breastmilk substitutes, including absolute bans on advertising and promotion for certain age groups. The Department of Health (DOH), citing these international instruments and its mandate under the Milk Code and the Administrative Code, issued A.O. No. 2006-0012 (RIRR) to update the implementing rules of the Milk Code, leading to this legal challenge by manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes.

The Department of Health (DOH) exceeded its rule-making authority when it issued RIRR provisions (Sections 4(f), 11, and 46) that absolutely prohibited advertising, promotions, and sponsorships of breastmilk substitutes for infants and young children up to 24 months and imposed administrative fines not authorized by the Milk Code (E.O. No. 51). While the DOH has the power to issue rules to implement the Milk Code, these rules cannot expand, modify, or contradict the parent statute; international instruments like World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions, unless transformed into domestic law through legislation or qualifying as customary international law, cannot be implemented by executive agencies as if they were binding domestic law.

The case originated from a claim for a tax refund by Primetown Property Group, Inc. (Primetown) for taxes paid in 1997. Due to the Asian Financial Crisis, the real estate industry slowed down, causing Primetown to suffer significant losses for that year. Despite these losses, the company had paid quarterly corporate income taxes and remitted creditable withholding taxes. Believing it was not liable for income tax due to its net loss, Primetown filed an administrative claim for a refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), which was not acted upon, prompting the company to seek judicial relief.

A "year" for the purpose of computing legal periods is understood to be twelve calendar months, as provided in Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which has impliedly repealed the definition of a "year" as 365 days under Article 13 of the Civil Code.

Danilo Morales and other employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) filed a class suit against NEA for the payment of various allowances and longevity pay purportedly authorized under Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Classification Act of 1989). The RTC granted their petition, ordering NEA to settle their claims.

A judgment directing a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) to "settle the claims" of its employees is a special judgment for the performance of an act other than the payment of a specific sum of money, and its execution cannot be enforced through garnishment; furthermore, even if a GOCC's funds can generally be garnished, a claim for payment of a judgment award against it must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can proceed.

The case stems from a marital dispute between Virgilio and Dita Maquilan. After Virgilio discovered Dita having an illicit affair, he filed a criminal case for adultery, resulting in the conviction of Dita and her paramour. Subsequently, Dita filed a civil case for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on psychological incapacity. During the pre-trial of this civil case, the spouses executed a Compromise Agreement to divide their assets, which the trial court approved. Virgilio later attempted to repudiate this agreement, leading to the current legal battle.

A Compromise Agreement effecting a partial voluntary separation of property between spouses is valid and binding even if one spouse has been convicted of adultery, as the penalty for adultery (prision correccional) does not carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction or automatic forfeiture of property rights absent a specific decree of legal separation or nullity requiring such forfeiture; furthermore, the participation of the Solicitor General is not a prerequisite for the validity of a property settlement that does not compromise the validity of the marriage bond.

The case arose from the upcoming May 14, 2007 party-list elections. Various groups filed manifestations of intent to participate, and some were accredited by the COMELEC. Public perception grew that some individuals behind these accredited party-list groups did not genuinely represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Petitioners, concerned about the qualifications and sectoral representation of these nominees, sought the disclosure of their names from the COMELEC, which the latter refused, leading to these petitions.

The Commission on Elections has a constitutional duty to disclose to the public the names of party-list nominees, as this is a matter of public concern falling under the people's right to information; Section 7 of R.A. No. 7941, which states that "The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list," only prohibits the inclusion of such names on the certified list posted in polling places on election day and does not constitute an absolute bar to their disclosure through other means before the election.

Rev. Fr. Nardo B. Cayat and Thomas R. Palileng, Sr. were candidates for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet in the May 10, 2004 local elections. Cayat had been previously convicted by final judgment for Forcible Acts of Lasciviousness, a crime involving moral turpitude, and was under probation when he filed his certificate of candidacy. This conviction became the basis for Palileng's petition to disqualify Cayat.

A candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted; consequently, the candidate who is the sole remaining qualified candidate does not merely take second place but is the only placer and is entitled to be proclaimed.

The dispute arose from a conflict between two sisters over the estate of their deceased mother, prompting the elder sister to file for the probate of a purported last will and testament, which the younger sister opposed on grounds of formal defects, lack of due execution, and lack of territorial jurisdiction of the acknowledging notary public.

A notarial will acknowledged before a notary public acting outside the territorial limits of his commission is void and cannot be admitted to probate because it fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of Article 806 of the Civil Code.

The dispute arose from the allocation of party-list seats in the House of Representatives following the May 2004 National and Local Elections. After petitioner CIBAC was proclaimed as having qualified for one seat by receiving the required two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for party-list representatives, a controversy emerged regarding its entitlement to an additional seat, hinging on the correct formula for computation to be used by the COMELEC.

The correct and prevailing formula for computing additional seats for qualified party-list groups is the one established in Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, which is: (Number of votes of concerned party / Number of votes of first party) x Number of additional seats allocated to the first party. A party-list group must obtain an exact whole number in this computation to be entitled to an additional seat; fractions are not rounded up.

The District Engineer of Pampanga initiated a public bidding for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare. Carlito Lacap, doing business as Carwin Construction and Construction Supply, was one of three pre-qualified contractors. After submitting the lowest bid, Lacap was awarded the contract by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). A formal Contract Agreement was executed, and Lacap proceeded with and completed the project. The dispute arose when the government, through the DPWH, refused to release the payment for the completed project upon the disapproval of the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA).

A contractor with an expired license who fully completes a government project is entitled to payment, as the Contractor's License Law (R.A. No. 4566) does not declare contracts entered into under such circumstances as void. The government cannot refuse payment and retain the benefits of the completed work, as this would constitute unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code.

William and Lucita Ong were married for over twenty years and had three children. In 1996, Lucita sought legal separation, claiming her life with William was characterized by frequent quarrels, physical assaults, and verbal abuse. The situation escalated during an incident in December 1995 involving physical violence and a gun, which forced Lucita to leave the conjugal home and seek medical treatment.

The Supreme Court affirmed that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when upheld by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court unless specific exceptions apply. Furthermore, the Court established that a witness's relationship to a party does not automatically render their testimony biased or incredible, and leaving the conjugal dwelling due to abusive conduct does not constitute "abandonment" that would bar a decree of legal separation.

The case arises from complaints about excessive placement fees charged by recruitment agencies for overseas employment, leading to investigations by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) under the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to enforce labor laws against illegal recruitment practices, including non-transferability of recruitment licenses.

A public officer's warrantless arrest during a legitimate entrapment operation, based on reasonable belief of violation of labor laws prohibiting unauthorized recruitment activities, does not constitute administrative offenses like oppression or grave misconduct when performed in good faith, though courts lack jurisdiction to review Ombudsman findings of probable cause in criminal cases.

The case stems from the breakdown of the marriage between a Filipino woman and a German man who had settled in the Philippines. The dispute centers on the financial settlement regarding a residential property in Antipolo, Rizal. The property was purchased and developed using the German husband's inherited funds but was registered solely in the wife's name to comply with Philippine laws prohibiting foreigners from owning land. Upon separation, the husband sought to recover his financial investment.

An alien who knowingly provides funds for the purchase of private land in the Philippines, circumventing the Constitutional prohibition against alien land ownership, is barred from seeking reimbursement for said funds or the cost of improvements based on equity, as he does not come to court with clean hands.

Presidential Decree No. 15 created the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) as a non-municipal public corporation governed by a Board of Trustees. PD 15, as amended, provided that vacancies in the Board were to be filled by election by a majority of the remaining trustees. Only if the Board became entirely vacant could the President of the Philippines fill such vacancies. This case arose from a dispute between a group of trustees appointed by then-President Joseph E. Estrada (Rufino group) and the incumbent trustees (Endriga group) who claimed their terms had not yet expired and that vacancies should be filled according to PD 15.

Section 6(b) and (c) of Presidential Decree No. 15, as amended, are unconstitutional insofar as they authorize the remaining trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines Board to fill vacancies in the Board by election, as this mechanism infringes upon the President's constitutional power of appointment and power of control.

The case arose from the appointment of Magdangal B. Elma to two significant government positions: first as Chairman of the PCGG and subsequently, during his tenure there, as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. This dual appointment raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and violations of constitutional provisions designed to prevent officials from holding multiple public offices, particularly given the distinct and potentially overlapping or conflicting responsibilities of the two roles.

The concurrent appointments of an individual as Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC) are unconstitutional because the two offices are incompatible, violating the prohibition against holding multiple offices under Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.

The case arose from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada against Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter, alleging that her living arrangement with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.—a man married to another woman—constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct tarnishing the image of the judiciary. Escritor, a widow whose own husband was previously estranged, admitted the cohabitation but claimed it conformed to the religious doctrines and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, formalized through a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" approved by her congregation, as Quilapio faced legal impediments to remarriage. This created a conflict between state laws penalizing such relationships and Escritor's constitutional right to religious freedom.

The State failed to demonstrate a compelling interest that would justify infringing upon the respondent's fundamental right to the free exercise of her religion, and failed to show that the means adopted was the least restrictive; therefore, the respondent's conjugal arrangement, sanctioned by her religious beliefs and practices as a Jehovah's Witness, cannot be penalized as disgraceful and immoral conduct, and she is entitled to an exemption based on her right to religious freedom.

The case arose from the implementation of various administrative orders and regulations issued over several decades by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and its predecessors, aiming to regulate traffic on limited access highways, commonly known as tollways or expressways. Specifically, these issuances involved restrictions and prohibitions on the use of motorcycles on these facilities, prompting challenges from motorcycle riders regarding the issuing body's authority and the constitutionality of the restrictions.

The authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities (tollways) under Republic Act No. 2000, originally vested in the Department of Public Works and Communications, was transferred to the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) by Executive Order 546 in 1979; consequently, subsequent issuances by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) regulating such access are void for lack of authority, while regulations issued by the predecessor department prior to the transfer remain valid if consistent with the Constitution.