E.O. 220 created the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) but a plebiscite to approve it failed. The court ruled E.O. 220 remained in force until repealed or amended. President Estrada later issued E.O.s extending the winding up of CAR operations and appropriating funds for this purpose. The petitioners sought to nullify the appropriation for winding up CAR. The court held that implementing E.O. 220 was an executive prerogative while sourcing funds was a legislative power, and absent abuse, the court would not interfere with the other branches regarding CAR policies.
E.O. 220 created the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) but a plebiscite to approve it failed. The court ruled E.O. 220 remained in force until repealed or amended. President Estrada later issued E.O.s extending the winding up of CAR operations and appropriating funds for this purpose. The petitioners sought to nullify the appropriation for winding up CAR. The court held that implementing E.O. 220 was an executive prerogative while sourcing funds was a legislative power, and absent abuse, the court would not interfere with the other branches regarding CAR policies.
E.O. 220 created the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) but a plebiscite to approve it failed. The court ruled E.O. 220 remained in force until repealed or amended. President Estrada later issued E.O.s extending the winding up of CAR operations and appropriating funds for this purpose. The petitioners sought to nullify the appropriation for winding up CAR. The court held that implementing E.O. 220 was an executive prerogative while sourcing funds was a legislative power, and absent abuse, the court would not interfere with the other branches regarding CAR policies.
E.O. 220 created the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) but a plebiscite to approve it failed. The court ruled E.O. 220 remained in force until repealed or amended. President Estrada later issued E.O.s extending the winding up of CAR operations and appropriating funds for this purpose. The petitioners sought to nullify the appropriation for winding up CAR. The court held that implementing E.O. 220 was an executive prerogative while sourcing funds was a legislative power, and absent abuse, the court would not interfere with the other branches regarding CAR policies.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Atitiw vs Zamora
G.R. No. 143374
September 30 2005 Tinga, J.: President Cory Aquino she promulgated E.O 220 creating CAR. In turn Congress enacted R.A 6766, an act providing for organic act for the cordillera autonomous region, a plebiscite was cast but was not approve by the people. The court declared that E.O 220 to be still in force and effect until properly repealed or amended. On February 15, 2000, President Estrada signed the GAA of 2000 then issued E.O 270 to extend the implementation of the winding up of operations of the CAR and extended it by virtue of E.O 328. The petitioners seek the declaration of nullity of paragraph 1 of the special provisions of GAA 2000 directing that the appropriation for the CAR shall be spent to wind up its activities and pay the separation and retirement benefits of all the affected members and employees. ISSUE: Whether the Republic should be ordered to honor its commitments as spelled out in EO.220 HELD: The concept of separations of powers presupposes mutual respect. Therefore, the implementation of E.O. 220 is an executive prerogative while the sourcing of funds is within the powers of the legislature. In the absence of any grave abuse of discretion, the court cannot correct the acts of either the Executive or the Legislative in respect to policies concerning CAR.