04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Constitution and existing laws, do hereby order: Section 1. Amending Section 3 of Executive Order No. 364. Section 3 of Executive Order No. 364, dated September 27, 2004 shall now read as follows: "Section 3. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall be an attached agency of the Department of Land Reform." Section 2. Compensation. The Chairperson shall suffer no diminution in rank and salary. Section 3. Repealing Clause. All executive issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby revoked, amended or modified accordingly. Section 4. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) Petitioners contend that the two presidential issuances are unconstitutional for violating: -THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AND OF THE RULE OF LAW[;] -THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME AND POLICIES FOR AGRARIAN REFORM, URBAN LAND REFORM, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' RIGHTS AND ANCESTRAL DOMAIN[; AND] -THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING, INCLUDING THROUGH ADEQUATE CONSULTATION[.] [1] By Resolution of December 6, 2005, this Court gave due course to the Petition and required the submission of memoranda, with which petitioners and respondents complied on March 24, 2006 and April 11, 2006, respectively. The issue on the transformation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) into the Department of Land Reform (DLR) became moot and academic, however, the department having reverted to its former name by virtue of E.O. No. 456[2] which was issued on August 23, 2005. The Court is thus left with the sole issue of the legality of placing the Presidential Commission[3] for the Urban Poor (PCUP) under the supervision and control of the DAR, and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under the DAR as an attached agency. Before inquiring into the validity of the reorganization, petitioners' locus standi or legal standing, inter alia,[4] becomes a preliminary question. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/44257 3/15