Limits on Presidential Authority: Protecting Cooperative Independence

TLDR; This case clarifies that the President’s power is not unlimited. The President cannot simply take over the management of a cooperative, even if there are problems. Cooperatives have the right to manage their own affairs, and the government should generally not interfere.

G.R. No. 127249, February 27, 1998

Introduction

Imagine a small town where the electric cooperative is the lifeblood of the community. Suddenly, the national government steps in, takes over management, and sidelines the elected board. This scenario highlights the critical balance between presidential power and the autonomy of cooperatives. This case, Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CANORECO) vs. Hon. Ruben D. Torres, delves into the legality of such intervention, setting important boundaries for executive action.

In this case, the President of the Philippines issued a memorandum order creating an ad hoc committee to manage the affairs of CANORECO. The cooperative, along with its officers, challenged the order, arguing that the President lacked the authority to take such action. The Supreme Court weighed in, ultimately siding with the cooperative and reaffirming the principles of cooperative autonomy.

Legal Context

The legal framework governing cooperatives in the Philippines is primarily found in Republic Act No. 6938, also known as the Cooperative Code of the Philippines, and Republic Act No. 6939, which created the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). These laws emphasize the self-governance of cooperatives and limit government interference in their internal affairs.

Article 38 of R.A. No. 6938 states:

Article 38. Composition of the Board of Directors. — The conduct and management of the affairs of a cooperative shall be vested in a board of directors which shall be composed of not less than five (5) nor more than fifteen (15) members elected by the general assembly for a term fixed in the by-laws but not exceeding a term of two (2) years and shall hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified, or until duly removed. However, no director shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms.

Furthermore, Article 121 of the Cooperative Code addresses the settlement of disputes within cooperatives:

ART. 121. Settlement of Disputes. — Disputes among members, officers, directors, and committee members, and intra-cooperative disputes shall, as far as practicable, be settled amicably in accordance with the conciliation or mediation mechanisms embodied in the by-laws of the cooperative, and in applicable laws.</blockquote

The power of the President to intervene is limited. While the President has supervisory powers over certain agencies like the National Electrification Administration (NEA), this does not automatically translate to the power to take over the management of a duly registered cooperative. The Cooperative Code and related laws prioritize the autonomy of cooperatives and prescribe specific procedures for resolving internal disputes.

Case Breakdown

The seeds of the case were planted when internal conflict arose within CANORECO, leading to a power struggle between two factions. One group, led by Norberto Ochoa, attempted to seize control through a special board meeting and election of new officers. The existing officers, the petitioners in this case, challenged this action before the CDA.

The CDA ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the actions of the Ochoa group null and void. Despite this ruling, the Ochoa group, allegedly with the assistance of NEA officials, forcibly took over CANORECO’s offices. The petitioners, armed with a writ of execution from the CDA, regained control. The President then issued Memorandum Order No. 409, creating an ad hoc committee to manage CANORECO, effectively sidelining the existing board and general manager.

The Supreme Court summarized the key issues:

• Whether the President has the power to take over and manage an electric cooperative.
• Whether the creation of the ad hoc committee was a valid exercise of presidential authority.

The Court emphasized that the President’s actions lacked legal basis. Justice Davide, writing for the Court, stated:

Memorandum Order No. 409 clearly removed from the Board of Directors of CANORECO the power to manage the affairs of CANORECO and transferred such power to the Ad Hoc Committee, albeit temporarily… Nothing in law supported the take-over of the management of the affairs of CANORECO, and the “suspension,” if not “removal,” of the Board of Directors and the officers thereof.

The Supreme Court found that the President’s action was an overreach of power, violating the principles of cooperative autonomy enshrined in the Cooperative Code. The Court declared Memorandum Order No. 409 invalid.

Practical Implications

This case serves as a powerful reminder that the President’s authority is not absolute, especially when it comes to interfering with the internal affairs of private organizations like cooperatives. It reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks and respecting the principles of self-governance.

For cooperatives, this ruling provides assurance that their autonomy is protected and that external intervention must be justified by law and due process. It also highlights the importance of having clear by-laws and internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

Key Lessons:

• The President’s power to intervene in the affairs of cooperatives is limited by law.
• Cooperatives have the right to manage their own affairs, free from undue government interference.
• Internal disputes within cooperatives should be resolved through established legal and internal mechanisms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can the President ever intervene in a cooperative’s affairs?

A: Yes, but only when authorized by law and when due process is followed. The President cannot simply take over a cooperative’s management without a clear legal basis.

Q: What should a cooperative do if it faces government intervention?

A: The cooperative should immediately seek legal counsel and challenge the intervention in court if it lacks a legal basis.

Q: What is the role of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) in disputes?

A: The CDA is responsible for mediating and conciliating disputes within cooperatives. If mediation fails, the CDA can issue a certificate of non-resolution, allowing the parties to file an action in court.

Q: What laws govern electric cooperatives in the Philippines?

A: Electric cooperatives are primarily governed by Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code), Republic Act No. 6939 (creating the CDA), and Presidential Decree No. 269 (National Electrification Administration Decree), as amended.

Q: What is an ad hoc committee?

A: An ad hoc committee is a temporary committee formed for a specific purpose. In this case, the President created an ad hoc committee to manage CANORECO’s affairs temporarily.

ASG Law specializes in cooperative law and governance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.