B.

Executive Department

• VP will take over while the president is on a leave of

The President is the ONLY one in the executive. All others are absence
merely his alter-egos. • when the disability no longer exists, the President must
relay this to the Senate Pres and the HoR Speaker via
Qualifications: written declaration and then he shall resume office and
1. Natural Born Citizen the VP will step down as Acting President
2. Registered Voter • In case of conflict between the Cabinet and Congress
3. Able to read and write regarding the President’s disability, Congress needs 2/3
4. 40 years of age on the day of the election (experience votes of each of the houses voting separately to
and wisdom) declare the President as disabled
5. Resident of the PH for at least 10 years immediately
preceding the day of the election If the president leaves the country, who takes over? Not the VP!
There is no provision on the Constitution, usually the Exec
Term: 6 years, for only 1 term (without re-election) Secretary takes over. (Exec Sec = “little president”)
XPN: If he or she has served the presidency for less than 4 years,
he or she may run for another term (Pres. Gloria Arroyo’s case) In case of serious illness – the public should be informed of the
President’s health; the Sec of Ntnl Defense, Sec of Foreign Affairs,
Oath - spells out the powers of the president into office; most and the AFP Chief of Staff shall not be denied access to the
important phrase in the oath is “execute the laws”; only gives a President
moral obligation unto the president and does not confer a legal
obligation; not a source of independent powers or obligations Removal by impeachment:
a. Initiation stage - impeachment complaint must be filed
Privileges and Compensation in the HoR on the following grounds:
a. Official residence – Malacañang 1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
b. Salary Grade 33 (current); salary is fixed by law and 2. Treason
may not be decreased or increased during tenure 3. Bribery
4. Graft and corruption
Succession – President -> VP -> Senate President -> Speaker of 5. Betrayal of public trust
the House 6. Other high crimes
After 1/3 voting from the HoR, the Articles of Impeachment will
Vacancy then be forwarded to the Senate for trial.
1. Death b. Trial stage – SC CJ will preside over the trial but will not
2. Resignation vote; 2/3 vote is required to convict
3. Permanent Disability (new ground) (requires a written c. Post-trial stage – if acquitted, he shall resume office
declaration of the Cabinet to Congress) and enjoy the one year impeachment ban; if
4. Impeachment convicted, immediately removed from office,
disqualified to hold any other position, and may be
What if only Temporary disability? No vacancy. The VP will take liable for criminal charges for his offenses
over.
Cabinet – its members are the secretaries of the departments;
Prohibitions acts under the direction and authority of the President; has same
1. Holding any other office/employment (to avoid conflict prohibitions as the President and VP regarding the holding of any
of interest) other office or employment, except:
2. Practicing any profession a. Through Constitutional Provision - VP as a
3. Participating in any business cabinet member and the DOJ Sec as an ex-
4. Being financially interested in any contract of the officio member of the JBC
government b. Through necessity or in ex-officio capacity –
5. Nepotism or appointing a spouses or relatives by DTI Sec as chairman of NDC and DAR Sec as
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree as chairman of Land Bank (ex-officio positions
Con-Con, members of the office of Ombudsman, receive no salary, only allowances)
Secretary or Usec, Chairman, Heads of Bureau or c. Through law – Cruz v COA case
offices or GOCCs
Note: President can assume a cabinet post since it is merely an What is the logic behind the prohibition on holding multiple
extension of his duties as the president positions? If the prohibition applies to the Executive (aka
Note: President is also the Chairman of NEDA under Sec. 9, Art XII President), then it would also apply to his alter-egos (Cabinet
of the Constitution Secretaries, as well as to the Cabinet Secretaries’ alternates.

What is the scope of the prohibition on office and employment? Estrada v. Arroyo (2001)
It covers both public and private employment!
Issue: WON Arroyo’s assumption of office is constitutional.
In case of vacancy before the term – may be temporary or
permanent; the VP shall act as Acting Pres Ruling: Yes.

In case of vacancy during the term - can only be permanent Framework: Let’s look into the provisions on succession. What
are the grounds for vacancy? 1. Death? No. He’s still alive up to
In case of temporary disability: now. 2. Disabled? No. He was able to file this case in the SC. 3.
• the President himself or a majority of his cabinet can Impeached? No. There was an impeachment case but he was
transmit via written declaration that the President is not convicted because the Senate suspended the proceedings.
temporarily unable to discharge his duties What ground is left? RESIGNATION!
•
Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 1
SC said that a resignation may be oral, written, implied or express Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)
and that a valid resignation has two elements:
1. intention to resign WON the president has the power to prohibit the Marcoses from
2. acts of relinquishment returning in the PH. YES!

Did Pres. Estrada Resign? The Court looked into his INTENTION. What is the right being asserted by the Marcoses? Right to return.
1. He left Malacaῇang and went to his house in Greenhills; It is not provided under the Constitution. However, the right to
2. They also looked into the Diary of Executive Secretary return is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Angara entitled “The Final Days of Josepgh Ejercito which is Customary International Law. It was then deemed
Estrada” and several communications that indicated incorporated. It was also transformed because the Senate
that THERE WAS CLEAR INTENTION to resign ratified it. Hence, the right to return is now part of the law of the
land. The Marcoses has the right to return. Is it absolute? No. The
The Court also considered the acts of Congress. limitations are National Security and Public Policy which the
1. They issued a resolution recognizing the presidency of president has the prerogative and discretion.
Pres. Arroyo;
2. They nominated Sen. Guingona as VP (related to the Marcoses’ contention: But the power of the president is limited to
rule on vacancy in VP office) those listed in the Constitution!
Taken all of these together, Pres. Estrada resigned from the
presidency. SC disagreed. The unstated powers or the residual powers of the
President emanate from his duty to protect the general welfare
CLU v. Exec. Secretary (1991) of the people as he has sworn in his oath of office to faithfully
executing the laws and to ensure the greatest good for the
EO 284 was passed by Cory Aquino that stated that the Cabinet, greatest number.
Usec, Assistant Secretary, or other appointees may hold other
offices in addition to their positions. The President’s power is not limited to those enumerated in the
Constitution! HE HAS RESIDUAL POWERS!
Ruling: EO is unconstitutional. The prohibition on holding other
offices is violated. The Framework of the president’s power:

The prohibition does not apply to executive officials without 1. What is the correct way of construing the power of the
additional compensation in Ex-officio capacity. president? No strict interpretation.
-it is not any other office
-it must be required by official’s primary function or it is closely 2. The Court looked into how the Courts appreciated
related to his duties executive power. It was found that, through times, the
president was compelled by specific situations to
If the duty is alien or inconsistent à It is a different office, hence, define his powers to control specific crises, but it was
it falls within the prohibition. impractical because our experience shows that the
president needs to react quickly. Hence, there is a
Cruz v. COA (2001) need for greater flexibility. The court concluded that
there was a penumbra. Although there are boundaries
COA directed all government agencies who have effected between the 3 branches, these boundaries are actually
additional compensations to officials in violation of the rule on elastic that allowed them to perform acts that are
holding additional offices to effect refund. incidental to their functions. (Angara v EleCom)

Ruling: The direction was valid. If the president is prohibited from Now, are the ones enumerated in the Constitution the
holding other offices, his alter-egos are also prohibited. It also only powers of the president? No! It must include the
applies to those persons who are designated by his alter-egos. incidental powers of the president because he had an
The only exception to this is ex-officio capacities because they oath. An oath that he must “faithfully execute the
are germane to the functions of the appointee. The prohibition laws”, meaning, he must MAKE DECISIONS TO
on multiple positions applies as well to the alternates of the PROMOTE THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST
Cabinet secretaries. To rule otherwise would be to give an unfair NUMBER which is part of our agreement in the social
advantage in favor of the alternates in comparison with the contract.
secretaries.
3. Considering the elasticity of the boundaries in the 3
NAC v. COA (2004) branches, how would the relationship between the 3
branches be? As long as an act is not exclusively
Ex officio officials delegated their tasks to their staffs who were exercised by one branch, the president can do it. If the
given honoraria. act will not violate the Doctrine of the Separation of
Powers, such act may be within the President’s power!
Ruling: The staffs were not entitled to compensation because
they are covered by the prohibition. 4. Use the Test of Arbitrariness à was the act made
without consideration of the facts?
Powers and Functions of the President If yes à There is grave abuse of discretion
If no à The act is valid
1. Executive power - power to enforce and administer Does the court need to verify the facts? No.
laws; duty to implement the laws within the standards
imposed by the legislature; the President is both Chief The president can now prohibit the Marcoses to return in relation
Executive and the Administrative Head of Government. to national security!

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 2

Almario v. Exec. Secretary (2013) breach of contract since the bidding award is not yet binding if
it has not been signed by the president.
Issue: WON the President can award national artists without the
nomination of NCCA and CCP NEA v. COA (2002)

Ruling: No. Although the president has the power to award, she NEA implemented the salary increase in one lump sum and
herself provided for the procedure. This is called Theory of Auto- accelerated the payment of these salaries. Pres. Ramos passed
limitation, which states that the president has set the standards EO 389 that decreed that the salary increase must be in 2
or processes. In our present case, the president has provided for tranches. NEA now assails the EO.
the process of awarding. She herself has constricted her power.
Hence, she is now limited to only approving the giving of the Ruling: The EO is valid. NEA’s accelerated payment is without
award or not giving awards at all. She acted in grave abuse legal basis since it failed to secure the approval of the president
when she violated the own guidelines she set up. or the DBM to do the same. The president’s power to control
executive departments
DENR v. DENR Region 12 employees (2003)
Ordinance Power – power to issue administrative acts and
The DENR Secretary directed the transfer of DENR Region 12 commands
Office from Cotabato to Koronadal City. Petitioner contends
that only the President can order a transfer. • Executive Orders – rules of general or permanent
character in implementation of statutory powers
Issue: WON the DENR Secretary has the power to reorganize.
• Administrative Orders – for governmental operations
Ruling: Yes. The act of the DENR Secretary is deemed to be that
of the president. This is called Doctrine of Qualified Political • Proclamations – fix a date or declare a status or
Agency. The different executive departments are mere adjuncts condition of public moment or interest
of the president, hence, the president has the power of control,
he can alter, modify, nullify or set-aside what the subordinate • Memorandum Orders – administrative matters that
has done in the performance of his duties. Since the DENR Sec is concern only a particular government office or officer
an alter-ego of the President, she is allowed the power to
reorganize DENR. The DENR Sec’s act is deemed to be valid • Memorandum Circulars – relates to internal
unless repudiated by the President. administration for the information or compliance of
some departments or bureaus
2. Control of executive departments
• General or Special Orders – acts and commands of the
Blaquera v. Alcala (1998) president as the commander-in-chief of the AFP

AO 29 was passed by Pres. Ramos that directed the heads of

departments to return the unauthorized payments of bonuses to 3. General supervision over local
employees. The heads then deducted the salaries and governments/autonomous regions – not the same as
allowances of petitioners to cover the overpayment. the power to control; supervision means overseeing the
subordinates’ actions to make sure that the laws are
Issue: WON the President’s act of changing the guidelines would executed; the supervisory power of the president does
violate the employees’ rights not include the power to overrule the acts of local
governments for it would be a violation of the State
Ruling: No. The president as the head of the government was just Policy to promote the autonomy of local governments
exercising his power to control over the executive department. In and autonomous regions.
the view of the president, the respondents made a mistake.
Through his power of control, he nullified the decision of his Note: Power to control is not applicable here if acts are within
subordinate for the automatic grant to bonus. The change in the the LGU’s discretion. The only remedy left for the president then is
guidelines would not violate the employees’ rights since bonuses to: FILE A CASE. (Administrative, Criminal or Civil)
are not vested rights and merely a privilege that can be
revoked. Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000)

Power to Control – the constitutionally-protected prerogative of An AO was passed that directed the LGUs to save 25% of their
the president to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate budget. 10% will be automatically saved or withheld from the
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to LGUs.
substitute the judgment of the former over the latter.
Ruling: AO is invalid. Withholding of funds amounts to power of
Hutchison Ports v. SBMA (2000) control, which the president does not have over LGUs. It controls
the LGUs on how they should spend their money, which interferes
The president ordered a rebidding although the petitioner was with their autonomy. The president’s power over local
already declared the winning bidder. governments is limited to general supervision under Sec. 4, Art. X
of the Constitution. Supervisory power is the power of mere
Ruling: Valid. SBMA, as a chartered institution, is always within the oversight and does not include any restraining authority over
direct control of the president. Hence, the president may such body.
overturn any award made by the SBMA for justifiable reasons.
The courts cannot interfere because it would be a violation of
the Doctrine of Separation of Powers unless such exercise of
discretion is used to shield unfairness or injustice. Also, there is no

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 3

National Liga ng mga Barangay v. Paredes (2004) d. His power to control

Due to the irregularities in the election in the Liga, the DILG was Exceptions to the President’s Removal Power:
appointed ad interim caretaker by judge Paredes. The DILG 1. SC members
issued memorandums and circulars for the Liga. 2. Ombudsman members
3. Members of Constitutional Commissions
Ruling: The DILG may validly be appointed as a caretaker
because the President though his alter ego, the DILG secretary, Coterminous employees – employees with the same term as the
exercises supervision over local governments. However, the DILG incumbent; can be terminated at the pleasure of the president
secretary went beyond the power of supervision when it issued without need for just cause
the memorandums circulars. Such act is tantamount to an
exercise of the power of control. Confidential employees – can be removed by the President
anytime since it is a position of trust and confidence; no need
4. Power of Appointment – most eminently executive for courtesy resignation
power
Bermudez v. Torres (1999)
Appointment - vesting of an office which is created and funded
by law to a person who acquires rights, duties, and Quiaoit was the one appointed by the President as Provincial
responsibilities; the power of appointment also covers the power Prosecutor while Bermudez was the one recommended by the
to dismiss DOJ Sec and he refused to vacate the office. He contends that
Quiaoit’s appointment was not valid because there was no
Appointments that are subject to confirmation of the COApp: recommendation from the DOJ Sec as provided for under the
law.
1. Heads of executive department - those heads of the
line department or those provided for under the Ruling: The appointment was valid. The President, being the
Administrative code of 1987 head of the Executive Department, has the power to control
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls - executive departments. Thus, the DOJ Sec’s recommendation
representatives of the PH in other countries should be treated as merely advisory in nature.
3. Officers of the AFP with the rank of colonel or naval
captain Sarmiento v. Mison (1987)
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in the
president under the constitution: Issue: WON the appointments of the heads of bureaus require
A. Chairman and members of the Constitutional COApp confirmation
Commission
B. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council Ruling: No. The power to appoint is fundamentally executive in
*This list is exclusive character. Limitation on such power is to be strictly construed.
Except for the appointments of the groups of officers in Sec 16,
Note: the appointments made by the president during recess of Article VII of the Constitution, presidential appointments are not
Congress is effective until disapproved by COApp or the next subject to confirmation by the COApp.
adjournment of Congress.
Bautista v. Salonga (1989)
Appointing Process
1. Nomination – exclusively President’s power Bautista was appointed chairman of the CHR. Salonga now
2. Confirmation – CoApp challenges Bautista’s appointment because the COApp did not
3. Commission – issued by the president confirm the said appointment.
4. Acceptance – appointee takes oath of office
Ruling: The appointment is valid. The Constitution does not
Midnight Appointments – appointments made two months provide for the appointment of the Chairman and the Members
before the next presidential elections; Exceptions to the of the CHR unlike with the other commissions, such as CSC, COA
appointment ban: and COMELEC. Hence, the Constitution has impliedly taken out
a. Temporary appointments the requirement of appointment by not including the same
b. Continued vacancy may prejudice public service or provision that you can expressly find in other commissions.
public safety
Calderon v. Carale (1992)
Kinds of Appointments
1. Regular - those that require COApp confirmation RA 6715 was passed that required COApp confirmation of the
2. Ad interim - it is made while congress is not in session. appointees from the NLRC.
The appointee can take his post right away. It is
complete and permanent appointment that lasts until Ruling: The law is unconstitutional because it amends Sec 16,
disapproved by the COApp or until next adjournment Article VII of the Constitution by adding the list of those that
of congress, unless in the meantime the CoApp needed the confirmation by the COApp. The list under the
confirms it Constitution is EXCLUSIVE.
3. Acting capacity - has the powers and authority of
those appointed in a regular capacity Manalo v. Sistoza (1999)

Removal Power – President’s power by implication through: The respondents were appointed as Director and Chief
a. His power to appoint Superintendent by the President without submitting their
b. The constitutional provision vesting executive power appointments to the COApp for confirmation.
upon him
c. His duty to faithfully execute the laws ISSUE: Is the appointment valid?

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 4

Ruling: The appointments were valid. Only presidential Ruling: The appointments were valid. The ban only applies to the
appointees included in Sec 16, Article VII of the Constitution president and not the local government. There is no law that
require exclusive COApp confirmation. Also, the PNP is different bans the mayor from appointing.
from the AFP, which requires confirmation by the COApp under
the Constitution. The PNP is civilian in nature. Ratio: The appointments by the mayor are not co-terminus with
his position unlike the president.
Soriano v. Lista (2003)
Matibag v. Benipayo (2002)
The legality of the appointments made by Pres Arroyo to
different positions of the Philippine Coast Guard is assailed Benipayo was appointed ad-interim in COMELEC. Matibag now
because the COApp did not confirm the said appointments. contends that Benipayo had no power to transfer her because
he was a mere ad-interim appointee.
Ruling: The appointments are valid. PNP is not under AFP. The
Coast Guard is no longer in the AFP they are now under the Ruling: The transfer was valid. An ad-interim appointment is not
DOTC. Hence, they are no longer covered under the permanent in nature but a regular appointment so Benipayo has
requirement of confirmation. the same power as a confirmed appointee.

Pimentel v. Ermita (2005) Removal power - General Rule: The President may only exercise
his removal power when there is just cause.
Pres. Arroyo issued appointments to respondents as acting XPN: Members of the cabinet and other executive officials
secretaries of their respective departments. whose term of office is determined at the pleasure of the
president.
Ruling: Appointments are valid. The appointments did not Ratio of XPN: The president’s relationship with them is based on
circumvent the requirement for confirmation since an acting trust and confidence. If this trust and confidence is no longer
capacity is only temporary in nature (1 year) and not continuous present, the president may remove them.
that it will interrupt the succession of the department.
Appointment to a permanent position requires COApp Larin v. Executive Secretary (1997)
confirmation. Under the admin code, the president may
appoint, “or any other competent person”. Hence, it is still the Larin was removed from service without just cause.
discretion of the president to appoint who will be taking charge
of the department even if only in a temporary capacity. Ruling: The removal was invalid. The power of removal is not
absolute. Larin is under career service, thus, he enjoys security of
In re: Valenzuela (1998) tenure and may not be removed without just cause. Since, there
was no just cause, he may not be removed.
This was an old rule. The ban is absolute. The president may not
appoint anyone during the period of the ban on appointments. 5. Executive Clemency or the Pardoning Power –
conviction by final judgment is required
De Castro v. JBC (2010)
• Pardon - extinction of both principal and accessory
This is now the new rule. During the period of the ban on penalties
appointments (two months immediately before the next o Absolute - extinction of both penalties
presidential elections until the end of his term), the president may o Conditional- accused is set free but release is
still appoint in the judicial branch. In other words, the ban only subject to conditions
applies to the executive branch. • Amnesty - extinction of the crime as if there is no crime;
it is applicable to political offenses (rebellion, treason,
Ratio: Under Art. 8, Sec. 9 of the Constitution, the Members of the etc); can be given before conviction; involves political
Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by and administrative crimes
the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by • Commutation - lessening of the penalty
the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such • Reprieve – temporary suspension of the application of
appointments need no confirmation. For the lower courts, the the penalty (Eg. Death Penalty)
President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the • Parole - after serving of a minimum term, the accused
submission of the list. can be released; it can be revoked if the accused
would violate the conditions imposed
Hence, there is a duty on the part of the president to appoint
because the appointment is essential to the administration of Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC (2015)
justice.
Estrada filed his COC for mayor but Vidal opposed the same.
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President (2015) She contended that when he was convicted for plunder, he was
sentenced with perpetual disqualification. Estrada was however,
SC defined the period of appointment to be from the moment pardoned by Pres. Arroyo.
of the oath and first day of office. Antedating of appointments is
valid as long as the appointees will take their oath and assume Ruling: Estrada’s COC is valid. When Estrada was granted
their office before the period of ban. absolute pardon, the penalty of perpetual disqualification was
extinguished together with the crime of plunder.
De Rama v. CA (2001)
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez (1949)
De Rama sought to recall the appointments of 14 municipal
employees and contended that they were midnight Jimenez and Barrioquinto were claiming amnesty but refused to
appointments. admit the crime charged.

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 5

In a pardon, it is important that it should state the extent and the
WON admission to the crime is necessary to claim amnesty. consequences of the pardon.

Ruling: No, admission to the commission of the crime is not a 6. Commander-in-chief

requisite for a claim for amnesty. It is sufficient that the evidence
comes with the terms of the amnesty proclamation. What are Three powers:
the effects:
• If you are not charged yet à ask for the dismissal of 1. Call out the AFP
the case • direct the AFP to deal with lawless violence
• If you are convicted à ask judgment to be vacated (lawlessness) à defense function, not law enforcement
• If you are serving sentence à ask for release, file a writ • to prevent or suppress invasion or rebellion or lawless
of habeas corpus violence
• it can be subject to judicial review
Vera v. People (1963) • no suspension of rights
• invasion – external
The case repealed the doctrine in Barrioquinto that to be • rebellion – internal
entitled to the benefits of amnesty it is not necessary that there • lawless violence – non-political internal threat
must be an admission to the commission of the crime. In this
case, it was held that it is inconsistent to ask for forgiveness from Note: AFP is only for internal threats, we rely on US for external
the crime that you are claiming to not have committed because threats
in amnesty it presupposes the commission of the crime. Hence,
amnesty can only be granted if the person claiming amnesty Graduated responses: (follow in order)
admits to the commission of the crime. A. Call out AFP
B. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (legal grounds:
Cristobal v. Labrador (1941) Commission of a crime, contagious disease, violent
insanity)
WON Cristobal can run for public office after he was convicted C. Declaration of Martial Law (Lasts for a maximum of 60
and was given pardon. days; the courts and congress cannot be closed)

Ruling: Yes, because in pardon, the penalties are extinguished. Grounds for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the
declaration of martial law:
Pellobelo v. Palatino (1941) A. When there is actual rebellion and public safety
requires it.
Pellobello was extended pardon but he was not permitted to B. When there is actual invasion and public safety requires
take his oath when he was elected mayor because when he it
was convicted, there was a penalty of disqualification. Note: The ground cannot be “public safety requires it” alone.
Duterte and Panelo are both stupid.
Ruling: Pellobello may take his oath. The SC here interpreted the
pardon liberally in favor of Pellobello. Since in the case of Vidal v Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus:
COMELEC, a pardon must be read in favor of the accused and • A person can be arrested and detained without a
such pardon restores all the civil rights of the accused. warrant or without yet being charged in court
• The person arrested must be charged with an offense
In Re Lontok (1923) within 3 days or else he shall be released

A lawyer was granted pardon from the president but the SolGen Proclamation of Martial Law:
moved to disbar him by reason of his conviction of the crime. • The president can exercise legislative powers
• The president may order the arrest of people involved
Ruling: The lawyer cannot be disbarred. When a person is in the rebellion or invasion.
extended pardon, it blots out the existence of guilt, and treats • However, a state of martial law does not:
him as innocent as if he had never committed anything. After o Suspend the operation of the Constitution
pardon, a person is given a clean slate. o Supplant the functioning of the civil courts
and legislative assemblies
Torres v. Gonzales (1987) o Automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus
Torres was given a conditional pardon, but he committed o Authorize military courts to try cases involving
another crime. Torres contended that the pardon cannot be civilians when civil courts are functioning
revoked yet because the case was still pending. • Role of the Congress: revoke or extend the suspension
of writ or the declaration of martial law
Ruling: The revocation of the pardon was valid. The president is • Role of the Supreme Court: review in an appropriate
the one who will determine if the conditions were violated not proceeding filed by any citizen the factual basis behind
any other branch. the suspension of the writ or the declaration or
extension of martial law
What are the remedies of the state when a conditional pardon
has been violated? 2. Faithful execution clause or “Take care power”
1. Revoke the pardon, order his arrest, no hearing
required • The president acts as chief executive not as
2. Charge with violation of criminal law commander in chief
3. Charge with a new crime • The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully
executed

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 6

3. Take-over in national emergency or the Emergency Miltary Tribunal its jurisdiction. It is only the legislative department
Powers that has the power to change the jurisdiction of courts.

• Public utilities are controlled by the president The accused can only be charged with one violation to avoid
• Legislative power is delegated to the president subjecting the accused to double jeopardy (if they charge the
• There must be a valid delegation through a law accused with a violation of the AoW, they cannot charge him
with the same offense under the RPC)
IBP v. Zamora (2000)
Lansang v. Garcia (1971)
The president called out the Marines and the PNP to conduct
joint visibility operations for crime prevention and suppression. President Marcos suspended the writ of habeas corpus following
the Plaza Miranda bombing and in conclusion that there is
Ruling: The call out was valid. The call out power is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection. The petitioners
discretionary power of the president, which is vested in his contended that there was no valid ground to suspend the writ
wisdom. The court cannot be called upon to substitute its because the proclamation did not indicate any actual invasion
wisdom to that of the president. However, the court may still or rebellion and that public safety requires it.
review on the basis of WON such power was exercised within
permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a Ruling: The suspension is still valid. Even if there is no actual
manner constituting GAOD. The call out must state the time invasion or insurrection, there was conspiracy and actuality of
frame and the limitations of it. The Court held that the president intent to cause uprising.
has sufficient factual basis to call for military aid in law
enforcement and in the exercise of this constitutional power. Applying the test of arbitrariness, the president did not act in
grave abuse of discretion since he based the suspension of the
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004) writ on the facts of the Senate reports on the conditions in
Central Luzon and a closed-door briefing by the military showing
Issue: WON a declaration of a state of rebellion is constitutional the extent of the subversion.

Ruling: No, the constitution does not require declarations for In Re De Villa (2004)
state of rebellion. Sec. 18 of Art VII provides that whenever it
becomes necessary, the president may call out such armed De Villa filed a writ of habeas corpus to determine the basis of his
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or detention.
rebellion. Courts can still review based on the test of arbitrariness
WON the president has factual basis in making his decision. Ruling: The writ is not the proper remedy. He was already
convicted so there is really a legal ground for his detention. He
A declaration of state of rebellion cannot curtail the civil rights of should’ve petitioned for a new trial to challenge his conviction
the people (i.e. right to peaceably assemble, right to freedom of not a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
speech, etc.); there can be no dilution of rights; a state of
rebellion is not equal to a state of martial law. David v. Arroyo (2006)

Aquino v. Enrile (1974) Pres. Arroyo issued PP No. 1017 and declared a state of
emergency. On the same day, petitioners were subjected to
In this case, the court ruled that the declaration of martial law is warrantless arrests and both the PNP and the AFP seized
a political question; hence, the courts cannot intervene. publication materials from the office of the newspaper The Daily
Tribune.
Now that the 1987 Constitution has been ratified, the declaration
of martial law is now justiciable. It can be the subject of review Issue: WON PP No. 1017 is constitutional.
through a petition. The courts can determine if there was factual
basis for the declaration and that if it is arbitrary. The first provision of PP No. 1017 refers to the president’s
Calling Out Power. Since PP No. 1017 is not a declaration of
Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 4 (1987) martial law and merely a declaration of a state of emergency,
the only requirement is that “whenever it becomes necessary to
Olaguer was tried and convicted in a Military Court. prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion”. PP
No. 1017 is constitutional insofar as it is merely an exercise of her
Ruling: Not valid. The declaration of martial law does not shut Calling Out Power under Sec. 18 Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.
down the courts. Civil Courts remain open and civilians must be
tried under them. A state of martial law does not confer The second provision of PP No. 1017 refers to the
jurisdiction of civil cases involving civilians to military courts or president’s Take Care Power in relation to the faithful execution
tribunals. clause found in Sec. 18 of Art VII of the 1987 Constitution. The SC
ruled that PP No. 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants Pres.
Navales v. Abaya (2004) Arroyo the power to issue decrees. Neither martial law nor a
state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify Pres.
A coup d’état is considered a mutiny under both the Articles of Arroyo’s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.
War and the Revised Penal Code.
The third provision of PP No. 1017 pertains to the
Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the cases involving president’s Take Over Power. Generally, Congress is the
violation of the Articles of War repository of emergency powers. The president can only exercise
emergency powers if such powers were conferred to him by the
Ruling: No. The Military Tribunal remains to have jurisdiction over Congress along with the conditions that: (1) there must be a war
these cases. The RTC cannot make the decision to deprive the or national emergency, (2) the exercise of emergency powers
must be for a limited time only, (3) the Congress may set the
Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 7
limitations of such powers, and (4) the emergency powers must spokesman of the nation in foreign relations; the
be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by president makes the decision and articulates the
Congress. PP No. 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes policy
her during the emergency to take over or direct the operation of
privately owned public utility without the authority from A. Treaties - these are national policies that are permanent in
Congress. nature which must be concurred in by 2/3 of Senate

7. Emergency Powers B. International agreements - changes in policy which must

also be concurred by 2/3 of the senate
• Emergency power is legislative in nature but can be
delegated by Congress to the President C. Executive agreements- these are implementing agreements
• There must be a law that will defines the parameters which do not need concurrence by the Senate; common
and duration of the extent of such emergency powers substances are: commercial and consular relations, most
favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and
President as Head of State - Foreign Relations Power copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements
and the settlement of claims; executive agreements are
8. Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans temporary in nature

Contracting loans – President has the power to incur debt in Note: Ratio on why they are for executive -> it requires
behalf of PH; needs concurrence from the Monetary Board, not immediate action and success sometimes depends on secrecy
Congress but Congress may provide guidelines (this is why the president has Executive Privilege)

Why does PH need the debt? It is for economic means. Although Saguisag v. Ochoa (2016)
we have the GAA, it is not yet funded; hence, we need to
borrow money. To expand, you need money to generate more The constitutionality of the EDCA is being assailed in this case.
income The petitioners contend that the EDCA was not sent to Senate to
be concurred. They also assert that the agreed locations in the
The country needs funds à to generate services à economic PH for the prepositioning of supplies and equipment and sending
growth à build infrastructures, but we don’t have money? ☹ so personnel amounts to a US base.
we need to borrow!!!
Issue: WON the EDCA requires Senate concurrence
Sovereign Guarantee - securing debts of non-government
entities Ruling: No. The EDCA is not a treaty; it is an executive agreement
and thus, it does not require concurrence by 2/3 of the Senate.
Is that possible? Yes! Non- government borrows à builds EDCA is merely an executive agreement that aims to implement
infrastructure à Benefit of PH ☺ an existing treaty, the Mutual Defense Treaty between PH and
US. Both the MDT and the VFA are already concurred in by the
Constantino v. Cuisa (2005) Senate.

Petitioners contend that the foreign debt reduction scheme Note: An agreement may be considered a treaty if it is
made by the Aquino administration is beyond the powers something new that is not covered by a previous treaty.
granted to the president under Section 20, Art VII of the 1987
Constitution. Can the president enter into an executive agreement relating to
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities? Yes. The role of the
These were contested in this case: President as the executor of the law includes the duty to defend
the State, for which purpose he may use that power in the
1. Bond conversion conduct of foreign relations. In light of this duty, it is the
prerogative of the president to do whatever is legal and
Ruling: It is covered by the power of the president to contract necessary for Philippine defense interest.
loan. The SC interpreted the power to contract loans as a
general power to incur indebtedness. Meaning, it includes The agreed locations are not bases:
various kinds of debts. (bonds = loans = any borrowing scheme) 1. They are located in existing PH Military reservations
2. PH has control and jurisdiction
2. Buy- back scheme (buyback is the purchase of the 3. They are temporary
sovereign issuer of its own debts at a discount) 4. Locations are still going to be agreed upon
5. During is good for 10 years
This mode pre-terminates debts. Constantino contends that it is a
violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers because What is the wisdom of the EDCA? The EDCA was necessary
Congress has already appropriated a certain amount. The buy- because of the threat of China
back scheme is using more money than the appropriations.
Nicolas v. Romulo (2009)
Ruling: The scheme is valid. This is a prerogative of the president.
Only the president as chief executive can perform this. Here, it is The petitioner contends that the VFA is not effective because
the Secretary of Finance. Under the Doctrine Of Qualified even if concurred in by the Senate, it was not concurred in by
Political Agency, an act of an alter ego of the president; is an the US.
act of the president. Besides, it is impractical for the president to
decide matters of foreign debt on his own. ISSUE: WON the VFA and the Romulo-Kenney Agreement are
constitutional
9. Foreign Affairs or the Treaty-Making Power-
president acts as representative of the PH; he is the

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 8

Ruling: The VFA is constitutional because it is not a treaty that
must be concurred. The VFA is merely the implementing There is no conflict between the Madrid Protocol and the IP
agreement for the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which code because the method of registration in the IP code is
is a self-executing agreement, does not provide for policy, it distinct from the system of registration of the Madrid Code. The
provides for jurisdiction, which is its substance. The policy of the applications under the Madrid protocol are subject to relevant
treaty is mutual aid. However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreement is national law while applications under our country are governed
not in accord with the VFA itself since it is in violation of Sec 10, by our local registration requirements. The SC also said that the
Art V of the VFA. fears of the petitioners are unfounded since the Philippine IP
Code is still in effect and was not amended by the Madrid
Justice Carpio’s concurring opinion: he narrated why the VFA is Protocol.
necessary especially with that China is doing in the West PH sea
now. He also suggests the prepositioning of supplies in the Definition of Terms from the IPA v Ochoa case:
Kalayaan Islands.
1. International agreement - refers to a contract or
Vinuya v. Romulo (2010) understanding entered into between PH and another
government in written form and governed by
The question whether the Philippine government should espouse international law; permanent treaties; needs Senate
claims of its nationals against a foreign government is a foreign concurrence; examples are UNCLOS, UNCEDAW and
relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably ASEAN (regional)
committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the
political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has 2. Treaties - international agreements entered into by the
already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to PH, which require Senate concurrence after executive
waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan. ratification. It includes compacts like conventions,
Logic: Respect! The president is the one with plenipotentiary declarations, covenants and acts. They involve political
powers. He is the one with the sole prerogative regarding issues or changes of national policy and those involving
matters of foreign relations. Matters of foreign relations are a international arrangements of permanent character;
political question and are thus dependent upon the wisdom of has force of law and is similar to an R.A.
the president and are not subject to judicial inquiry.
3. Executive agreements - they are similar to treaties but
People’s Movement For Press Freedom, et al. v. Manglapus they do not require Senate concurrence; they are
(1988) agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying
out well-established national policies and traditions and
The case is about the extension of military bases in the PH. those involving arrangements of more or less temporary
nature; non-necessity of Senate concurrence in
WON the public has the right to information on the matters of executive agreements is confirmed by long usage.
negotiation of the president with other heads of state.
Go Tek v. Deportation Board (1977)
Ruling: No. These information are privileged. It cannot be
disclosed during the stage of negotiation because it is possible Go Tek was found to be in possession of fake dollars which was in
that other states might use the information against us. It can violation of the RPC. Hence, he was declared an undesirable
however be disclosed after an agreement is met and when it alien. He was recommended for deportation but Go Tek
has become a matter of public concern. contended that the case against him was still pending.

Comm. Of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading (1961)

ISSUE: WON the President has the power to deport an
There was an agreement with Japan regarding importations. undesirable alien while his case is still pending

ISSUE: WON the executive agreement needs Senate Ruling: Yes. The pending case is immaterial because the Chief
concurrence Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of
facts, which warrant the deportation of alien. This power is not
Ruling: The SC ruled that treaties are different from executive dependent in any judgment. He has the power to allow entry or
agreements. The former are permanent in character and require to deport aliens. Deportation is strictly a political issue.
Senate concurrence while the latter is merely temporary in
nature and does not require Senate concurrence. The power to deport is based on the four elements of the state:
territory, people, government and sovereignty.
Note: The agreements made by the president, which are not
treaties, are executive agreements. Note: Acquittal from a criminal case is not a bar to deportation.
10. Power over Legislation
Intellectual Property Association v. Ochoa (2016) a. Address Congress – SONA every 4th Monday of
July; SONA contains the president’s proposals for
ISSUE: WON the Madrid Protocol is unconstitutional due to the legislation
lack of concurrence from the Senate and that it is contrary to b. Preparation and submission of the Budget – NEP or
R.A. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code. the National Expenditure Plan which will be used
as the upper limit of the appropriations bill to be
Ruling: No. The Madrid Protocol does not need concurrence passed by Congress; the president will submit a
from the Senate because it is not a treaty but an executive budget of expenditures and sources of financing,
agreement that only needs the president’s approval. There is a including receipts from existing and proposed
right given to the executive to enter into binding agreements revenue measures
without the necessity of congressional approval in matters that c. Veto Power – power of the president to disapprove
cover subjects such as trademark and copyright protection. a bill; president can only approve or veto bills as a

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 9

whole
d. Emergency Powers – it is delegated from Congress;
it is the power to issue rules and regulations to carry
out a declared national policy.

11. Immunity from suit – no constitutional provision

conferring such immunity but it is incidental to the
president’s powers

What is the ratio behind the grant of immunity from suit to the
president? It is to assure the exercise of presidential duties and
functions free from hindrance or distraction.

Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)

The petitioner maintains that since the president can’t be sued,

the president cannot sue.

Ruling: No. There is no law barring the president from filling a suit
and the president may waive her immunity if she so wishes.

The Vice President

Qualifications, election, oath: same as the president

Term: 6 years, up to 2 successive terms

Privileges: Salary fixed by law; no official residence

Prohibitions – same as the president

The VP has the same qualifications as the president because the

VP is a spare tire. He has no other job but to wait for the
president to die, to be impeached or to be permanently
disabled. Nevertheless, the VP may be appointed as a member
of the President’s cabinet without need of CoApp confirmation

In case of vacancy in the VP position, there is no acting VP! The

president shall nominate a VP from the Senate or the HoR. He
can assume VP office after confirmation by majority vote of both
houses of Congress voting separately.

Constitutional Law 1 || 2016 10