The Supreme Court tackled a dispute over the salary grade of government nurses, weighing the Philippine Nursing Act’s mandate for a minimum base pay of Salary Grade 15 against a joint resolution aimed at standardizing compensation across the government. While affirming the Nursing Act’s validity, the Court acknowledged it could not compel the executive branch to implement the salary increase without legislative appropriation, respecting the separation of powers. This decision clarifies that while specific laws intend to benefit certain professions remain valid, their implementation depends on the government’s fiscal capacity as determined by Congress.

When Good Intentions Clash: Can a Joint Resolution Override a Nursing Act?

The Ang Nars Party-List, representing nurses’ interests, and the Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK) sought to enforce Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173, which mandates that government nurses receive a minimum base pay of Salary Grade 15. However, Executive Order No. 811, issued pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 4, fixed the salary grade for entry-level government nurses at Salary Grade 11. The petitioners argued that the executive order undermined the Nursing Act, while the government maintained that the joint resolution, intended to standardize government compensation, effectively amended the act. At the heart of the matter lay the question: can a joint resolution, aimed at government-wide salary standardization, override a specific law designed to benefit a particular profession?

The Supreme Court emphasized that **only a bill can become a law**, adhering to the explicit requirements of the Constitution, such as passing three readings on separate days unless urgency is certified. The Court clarified that Joint Resolution No. 4, while following a similar procedure, does not equate to a law capable of amending or repealing existing statutes. While a joint resolution can be part of the implementation of a law, as explicitly mentioned in the law itself, in this instance the amendatory language was contained in paragraph 16, which was not implemented via any change to existing law.

It referenced key aspects of legislative procedure, noting that in contrast with a bill being voted on and approved after printing, a joint resolution does not afford any protection to an individual in being alerted that a proposal or law is being passed that can bind them. In the same vein, the right of the President to veto applies exclusively to bills.

Therefore, Joint Resolution No. 4 could only be considered an implementing rule and/or recommendaton, in line with the authority under Republic Act No. 6758 – The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, not an amendment or repeal of an earlier law. This effectively means EO 811 also cannot, being merely a presidential issuance, amend of repeal Sec. 32 of R.A. 9173, thereby violating the principle of non-dimution of wages to public officers or employees. As the Court noted, Joint Resolution No. 4 had no effect without amendatory law.

The Supreme Court acknowledged, though, that **it cannot compel Congress to appropriate public funds**, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers. Article VI, Section 29(1) of the Constitution explicitly provides that “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” To enforce Section 32 of R.A. 9173 would require a law appropriating the necessary funds, a decision that lies within the sole discretion of the legislative branch.

Despite declaring the validity of the Nursing Act and voiding the portions of the joint resolution and executive order that attempted to undermine it, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition to compel implementation. This seemingly paradoxical outcome underscores the complex interplay between different branches of government. In conclusion, it is down to individual nurses who were aggrieved by its implementation, should an act that is proven to be unlawful be undertaken. In addition, they may petition their representative to initiate lawmaking changes for clarity that would have weight of precedence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether a joint resolution intended to standardize government compensation could override a specific law mandating a higher salary grade for government nurses.
What did the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002 say about nurses’ salaries?	It stated that the minimum base pay for nurses in public health institutions should not be lower than Salary Grade 15.
What did Executive Order No. 811 do?	It fixed the salary grade for entry-level government nurses at Salary Grade 11, pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 4.
What is a joint resolution?	A resolution approved by both houses of Congress, similar to a bill, often used for single-item issues like emergency appropriations; however, the Supreme Court clarified it is NOT a law.
Can a joint resolution amend existing laws?	The Supreme Court declared that only a bill that has become a law can amend existing laws; a joint resolution itself does not have this power, but acts in response to it as determined under RA6758 and GAAs after amendment.
Did the Supreme Court rule that government nurses should be paid Salary Grade 15?	The Court upheld the validity of the Nursing Act’s provision for Salary Grade 15 but said that as there was no budget in existing law providing money to enact a new salary schedule under the constitution, there could be no court compulsion to do so.
Why couldn’t the Supreme Court force the government to pay Salary Grade 15?	Because the power to appropriate public funds lies exclusively with Congress, not the judiciary, according to the principle of separation of powers.
What is the next step for nurses seeking Salary Grade 15?	They need to lobby Congress to pass a law specifically appropriating funds for the implementation of Section 32 of the Nursing Act.
Was there any provision in the GAAs?	That special provision did not expressly make reference for appropriations from an implementing Nursing Act under RA 9173 to have basis.

In conclusion, this case illuminates the complex interplay between laws and government policies, offering crucial insight into how compensation disputes are navigated within the framework of the Philippine legal system. It serves as a vital reminder that while laws may express intentions, their practical application hinges on the availability of funds appropriated by the legislature.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ang Nars Party-List vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 215746, October 08, 2019