Consti 1 TSN Rev Complete Long For Printing

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 TRANSCRIPT
From the lectures of Atty. Vincent Paul Le. Montejo

Ateneo de Davao College of Law | College of Law | Kwatro Manresa | SY 2016-2017
congressional act, legislative act, or enabling law to make

July 20 (FBagundang)
the rights under the constitution claimable. The
presumption is that there is no need for an enabling law
I. IN GENERAL for rights in the constitution to be claimable.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION The only exception is when, by intent or by express
requirement of the provision, an enabling law must have
So, we start with judicial review. There is nothing much in the to be passed by congress. In all the cases you have read
preliminary matters in the syllabus because this is review involving self-executing and non-self-executing, Article 2
already. (DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
We have 3 parts: POLICIES PRINCIPLES) is one of policy. These are just
policies. They cannot be a basis for any claim of right. So,
1. Constitution of government there cannot be no direct action that can be based on
those provisions on policies because they are not self-
In the constitution of government, you just remember
executing provisions of the constitution.
that the constitution is not a document on which all
the powers are enumerated, listed, and specified. The 2. That because this (Constitution) is not a penal statute,
statement in articles 6 to 8 section 1 where executive there is no retroactive application. Provisions in the
power, legislative power, and judicial power are constitution are prospectively applied and perhaps the
vested or lodged is just a restatement and not a grant only provision in the present constitution that is
of authority or power. retroactively applied is your definition of who are natural
born citizens under the citizenship article under article 4
2. Constitution of liberties, and
because it covers those children born under the 1935
3. Constitution of sovereignty. constitution of Filipino mothers married to a foreigner
father, which is not included in the 1973 definition of
ARTICLE VI (THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT) natural born citizens. The intent is to cover those children.
Hence, it is retroactively applied. In relation to the
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the constitutionality of the statute is the third rule.
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and
a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to ARTICLE IV (CITIZENSHIP)
the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are
ARTICLE VII (EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT) citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
of the Philippines. citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
ARTICLE VIII (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT) deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 3. Remember that provisions in the constitution are to be
understood in their context and in their ordinary
RESIDUAL POWER dictionary meaning.
In your understanding of what is a residual power, whatever is Chavez v. JBC

considered to be within the scope or context of legislation is
part of legislative authority; the scope of implementation is
The Supreme Court quoted the latin maxim verba legis
within the entire concept of executive power; and
non est recidendum meaning there can be no departure
interpretation is judicial power.
on words as the statute or the constitution has provided
That is the concept of residual power. It is not necessary for for 2 reasons:
the constitution to list down the term or what the extent of the
a. The words and phrases in the constitution have
powers are because the constitution is not a document that
the intent and objective of the framers. What is
grants power per se. Rather, it is supposed to be understood
the extent and objective of the framers? To make
as a limitation of power.
them understandable by everybody.
While there are several provisions in the constitution
b. The second reason is that the constitution is not
respecting a particular power, it is not a grant but a limitation
a document for lawyers or law students or those
of such power. Example of which is section 1 of article 6.
knowledgeable in law, so that words and phrases
Legislative is vested in congress. Then, there is the first
are to be understood in their ordinary or
limitation (composed of two houses) and then the second
dictionary meaning except of course when there
limitation (reserved to the people by the provision on initiative
is an intent [to use the technical meaning].
and referendum). If it were not for those two [limitations],
then legislative power is with congress. Plain and simple. But
because there are other provisos there, it is to be considered So, the use of the word reclusion perpetua in article 15 on
as a limitation to the extent of legislative authority granted to the right to bail should be understood in its ordinary
congress. meaning to include life imprisonment because the
technical term of reclusion perpetua is used loosely, so
that when the penalty imposable is not reclusion perpetua
III. JUDICIAL ELABORATION OF THE
or higher, bail should be a matter of right constitutionally.
CONSTITUTION
But if the intent is to use the technical meaning like writ of
amparo under your commander-in-chief clause powers, of
A. CONSTRUCTION course, there can be no any other meaning except the
Of course, you remember the basic rules: right of writ of amparo, if that were to be suspended.
Also, in promulgations of national positions in elective
1. That the provisions in the constitution are deemed to be offices, the word residence has been constantly
self-executing. When you say self-executing, they are interpreted to mean domicile, so that even of the word
direct sources of rights. There is no need for a
1|P a g e
residence is used as a qualification to an elective public courts have the power to exercise judicial review.
office, that should be understood in its technical meaning
and not its ordinary meaning. This is based on certain principles:
4. Then you have the rule on dynamism where the words 1. PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
and phrases in the constitution or constitutional provisions
must be capable of being interpreted not only to It is primary among them where there is a violation of
meet what is being asked of the present but also constitutionally delineated exercise of power, the courts
the uncertainties and vagaries of the future. It is does not have a power per se but largely an obligation
said that one of the measures of a good constitution is and duty to ensure that there is no violation of this
that it is capable of being interpreted not only to delineation of power in the constitution. Judicial power,
accommodate the demands of the present but also those however, as a concept has been included expressly in the
to be demandable in the future. provisions of the 1987 constitution.
In relation to this is your understanding of the: THE Under Sec. 1 of Art. 8, we all know that the definition of
DOCTRINE OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY. judicial power has been expanded to include judicial
What does that mean? review, and so, because of the expanded definition of
judicial power, there is now no more question as to the
When the Supreme Court interprets a law, statute, or an court's power to exercise judicial review. Of course, in the
act in relation to a constitutional provision to be not valid 1973 constitution, this has not been included but then
under the constitution at present, it does not mean that again as early as the Angara ruling, it has been ruled that
the ruling will remain forever. Conversely, if the Supreme the judiciary has this duty and obligation.
Court says that it is valid in the constitution as of the
moment, that does not mean that it will remain to be valid ARTICLE VIII (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
forever as they say there is no forever. When the
circumstances have been altered or [there are] new Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
developments say in human society or in human behavior, Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
that ruling may change defending on the demands of that established by law.
particular time.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
If you remember the flag salute cases, what was the first settle actual controversies involving rights which are
thing that you could remember in these cases where legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
Jehovah’s witnesses were not required to salute the flag? whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
In the prior case, before the more pertinent ruling in the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
late 1990s, the previous ruling was that it does not violate any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
their right under the freedom to exercise [religion] clause,
but when the same question was raised 16 years after, 2. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
the Supreme Court ruling changed, saying that it violates
the free exercise clause. The court, however, despite the power, would hesitate, if
not, refuse to exercise judicial review powers when not all
What has changed? Petitioners are the same. Religion is the conditions are present. This is because of the concept
the same. The claim is the same. The government is still of PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY that when
the same. The circumstances have altered. The evil Congress enacts a bill, presents it to the president, and
sought to be avoided in the earlier decision has not come the president signs it into law, it is supposed to be
to pass or it could not instill the sense of patriotism to presumed that they (members of Congress) are doing
children simply by compelling them to salute the flag. their functions in accordance with the constitution.
There could be other ways of instilling patriotism on
children. That the fear that there would be a generation of 3. CO-EQUALITY
children lacking in that sense [of patriotism] did not come The 3 branches are co-equal. It will not easy for a co-
to pass, so the constitution should be capable of being equal body to impose its power over a co-equal.
interpreted not only to meet the questions of the present
but also that of the future. 4. CHECKS AND BALANCES and INTERDEPENDENCE
Perhaps what comes to mind is the ruling in the case of Largely, when the court exercises review powers, it is as if
Tanada v. Tuvera including the inclusion of the looking into the validity of the acts of the coordinate
Philippines into the GATT and WTO. The latest of that is branches of government. That is why courts will only
the restatement in the case of Datu Michael Abas Kida exercise this judicial review power when all the conditions
v. Senate involving the postponement of the ARMM are present.
elections. Basically, the rule is that the constitution must
be able to accommodate those that may not have been
conceived as a possible legal question in the future. C. CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
There are simply four conditions:
B. THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
a. There must be an appropriate case which is ripe for
That being said, we now go to the THEORY OF JUDICIAL judicial adjudication;
REVIEW.
b. It must be raised at the earliest opportunity;
As you all know, the theory of judicial review has been there
ever since. Your landmark ruling of: c. The party bringing it must have legal standing; and,
d. The constitutional question must have to be the
Angara v. Electoral commission very lis mota of the case.
SC points out that even if the 1935 constitution under which This is a favorite bar question. This comes out almost
this case has been decided has not provided in express every year, calling for your understanding when to
terms judicial review, the Supreme Court said that the exercise the court's power of judicial review. The problem
is presented to the examinee showing a possible violation
2|P a g e
of a constitutional provision by an act, order, or statute by it is too early or too late, then it is no longer ripe for
the other branches of government. The rule of thumb is judicial determination.
that if there is no prior Supreme Court ruling on the same
There must have to be a conflict. What is a conflict? It is
set of facts on the problem, do not ever attempt to rule on
likened to a cause of action in civil procedure, but here,
the constitutional question.
what is being protected is a public right and not a private
You have to dismiss the Petition because one or some of right. So, here, there is an act of government against the
the conditions are not present. Stated differently, if you do right of an individual, and there is an impending or
not know that the question has been resolved already, do threatened injury, then it is ripe for judicial determination.
not attempt to answer that the same is constitutional or That is the concept of appropriate case or controversy.
not unconstitutional because the question simply calls for
2. It must be raised at the earliest opportunity;
your understanding of the conditions i.e. if the all the
conditions are present, failing which, the petition must Raised at the earliest opportunity means before it has
have to be dismissed or denied. It is as simple as that. become moot or academic. When it has already become
The problem is how will you know that there is a prior moot or academic or when a party, by reason of the
ruling? Now, that is your problem. Not mine. That is the benefits already claimed or taken advantage of in the
problem. If you have not read the cases, then you will questioned act or statute of the government, then you
never know that the question has already been resolved. may not be allowed anymore to question its validity.
Case in point there is:
Lamp v. Secretary of DMP
Hacienda Luisita v. PARC

The petitioners here are questioning the constitutionality
of PDAF. If you have read that and you know only up to
that, then you would say that PDAF is not One of the issues they were raising there is the validity of
unconstitutional. the stock dividend option fund. This is the agrarian
reform coverage of Hacienda Luisita; the longest running
unimplemented land reform.
If you went on further, you will come across the case of
Belgica vs. Ochoa and Araullo vs. Aquino. These are Probably now, since the DAR secretary used to be with
landmark cases. the Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas, the distribution
will now take place under this administration. What was
You do not forget them even by their title because when you
offered to the DAR beneficiaries is stock distribution
are asked in your bar and you answer and cite the title, even if
option. They will now be stock holders of Hacienda
the rest is Our Father or Hail Mary, the examiner will know that
Luisita instead of getting 3 hectares of land as
you have read the decision.
beneficiary. Some of them took advantage of it and are
What is the case title on the question of the validity of the now shareholders of stocks of Hacienda Luisita. 14 years
PDAF? Imbong vs. Ochoa. later, they raised the issue to the court saying that the
stock distribution option fund is unconstitutional or
Cybercrime? Disini vs. SOJ. These are not difficult to invalid because it is not consistent with the constitutional
remember anyway. provision on agrarian reform in relation to the law (RA
For example, the case is how do you grant bail? Can bail be 6557).
granted on humanitarian grounds even before the prosecution HELD: Supreme Court said that it is rather too late. Most
is allowed to present evidence of guilt and that the guilt is of your members have already benefitted from the fund
strong? Is that allowable? Yes, in the case of Enrile vs. by taking stocks of the corporation. It is no longer
Sandiganbayan. If you are not Enrile, you cannot be granted beneficial to seek a ruling on its validity at this point in
bail. If you are just a Montejo, then you will rot in jail! (This is time, which is 14 years later.
contrary to all the previous rulings of SC). Those are the
considerations in judicial review questions.
Of course, even if the petition has become moot and
1. There must be an appropriate case which is ripe academic, the court can still decide constitutional
for judicial adjudication; questions or issues if the following are still present as
decided in the case of:
What is an appropriate case, action, or petition to question
the constitutionality of an act? Petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is an appropriate petition to question the Funa v. Agra
constitutionality of an act or law. It could also be a
petition for prohibition or mandamus. Those are the 1. There is a grave violation of the constitution;
normal kinds or types of petitions where issues of 2. The exceptional character of the situation and
constitutionality are raised. But can you raise it in any paramount public interest is involved;
other [petition]? The answer is yes. You can even raise it
as a defense in a criminal case. Remember the very old 3. The constitutional issue raised requires
case of: formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar and the public; and,
Ynot v. IAC 4. The case is capable of repetition
Where a person was charged of a violating an Ordinance In any of these cases, despite the fact that the issue or
for the interprovincial transfer of carabao without permit. case has become moot or academic, the court can still
His defense was that law or ordinance is unconstitutional. opt, by its discretion, to exercise judicial review. Going
It was allowed because of the second requirement that it back to my first statement that even if you think that any
must be brought at the earliest opportunity. of these are present and the issue has become moot or
academic but there is no prior decision that the court has
Actual appropriate case or controversy simply means that exercised discretion to resolve the issue despite the fact
the action in issue is ripe for judicial determination. When that it has become moot or academic, do not attempt to
rule on the constitutional question until you get to (or
3|P a g e
become a Justice of) the Supreme Court because if you f) CONCEPT OF INTERGENERATIONAL
are there already, then you can rule on anything and that RESPONSIBILITY.
will form part of the law of the land.
Try to stick with these conditions and if one, some, or all Oposa v. Factoran
of the conditions are not present, then please do not
resolve the constitutional question. Just deny the Petition. Where the petitioners who are minors filed the case not
only for themselves but also for future generation or
3. The party bringing it must have legal standing; generations to come to have a right to a balanced and
and, healthful ecology.
The party bringing the action has no legal standing. The Supreme Court, quoting US Supreme Court
By analogy to civil procedure, legal standing means decisions, stated that these minor children have legal
real party in interest. The party petitioner or its standing to bring the petition before the court because
equivalent in a criminal or civil action must be the real they have a right to a balanced and healthful ecology
party in interest. because it involves an environmental case.
A person has a personal interest either because he That legal standing based on Intergenerational
has suffered a damage or injury because of the Responsibility is therefore limited only to environmental
questioned act, or there is a threatened suffering or cases in relation to article 2 on the principle or policy that
injury if he will not get a favorable ruling on the issue citizens have a right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
of constitutionality. The interest must be personal,
substantial, and convenient. The latest case perhaps that has been decided by the
The SC has expanded the concept of locus standi or Supreme Court is:
legal standing:
International Service For The Acquisition Of Agri-
a) It may not be for personal injury per se or strictly in Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace
all cases because the real party in interest, by Southeast Asia (Philippines), December 8, 2015.
analogy, is what is referred to as an ORDINARY
CITIZEN'S SUIT.
This involves the validity of the BT Talong in relation to
b) VOTER'S SUIT. Department of Agriculture Department Order No. 8,
Series of 2000.
When the right of suffrage is at stake in the
questioned act, the person may be given a legal The Supreme Court quoted as a preliminary issue the
standing because of him being a voter. Oposa v. Factoran ruling granting legal standing for
those who file similar petitions not only for themselves
c) TAXPAYER'S SUIT.
but also in representation of future generations.
When the questioned act involved disbursement or
The Supreme Court recently stated that this is in
expenditure of a public fund. Does he have to be a
recognition of the public right of the citizen’s right to a
paying taxpayer? No, provided that the taxpayer has
balanced and healthful ecology.
a legal interest in the proper disbursement or
expenditure of public funds, then he may be given
legal standing to question the constitutionality of the So, the use of intergenerational responsibility as basis for
act. legal standing must have to be in relation to an
environmental issue. Other than that, the public's right to
d) LEGISLATOR'S SUIT. be a subject of a petition to question the constitutionality
of an act must either fall under the ordinary citizen's suit,
When a member of congress questions the
voter's suit, taxpayer’s suit, or a legislator's suit.
constitutionality of an act passed by congress, the
legislator is given legal standing even if he is a part of Transcendental importance is an exception. Also this
the body approving it because it encroaches to his intergenerational responsibility. Mostly, it would have to
legislative functions. Again, congress is supposed to be based on an ordinary citizen's suit equivalent again to
enact laws which are valid under the constitution. real party in interest in civil cases.
When congress enacts a bill which becomes a law
which members think is not constitutional, they are 4. The constitutional question must have to be
given legal standing. the very lis mota of the case.
e) DOCTRINE OF TRANSCENDENTAL The constitutional question is the very lis mota of the
IMPORTANCE. case. What is meant by lis mota? The court cannot
dispose of the petition or the case without resolving the
Legal standing is given based on the Doctrine of constitutional question. If there is no appropriate case, it
Transcendental Importance not because of the party can be denied based on that ground; and it was filed too
petitioner’s injury to be suffered but because of the early or too late (meaning, it is already moot and
importance of the issue at hand that requires the academic and is not one of the exceptions), it can likewise
court to resolve it and not to dismiss based merely on be denied based on that ground. If the party bringing the
technicality. case has no legal standing in any of those four or the two
exceptional cases, deny the petition based on that ground.
This requires three conditions:
So, the case or the petition can be disposed of using the
a. There is a public character of the fund or
ground of lack of one, some, or all of the conditions. It is
asset involved
not necessary for the court to dispose of the constitutional
b. There is a clear case of constitutional question.
disregard
But if the three conditions are present and there is no way
c. There is lack of any other direct party with for the court to avoid the constitutional question, it is
appropriate legal standing. necessary therefore for the court to resolve it, that should
mean that the constitutional question is the very lis mota
4|P a g e
of the case. So, those were the conditions for the exercise The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
of judicial review. with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
D. FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
There is nothing much to it. Still the same as before.
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
1. CHECKING OR NEGATIVE FUNCTION archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
The act in question is nullified for being inconsistent
with the constitution. Your UNCLOS defines an archipelago, supposedly, as a group
of islands surrounded with water but because of the definition
2. LEGITIMIZING OR POSITIVE FUNCTION of internal waters, the interpretation of what an archipelago is
The court will always state that it will not be declared it should be in relation to body of waters studded with islands.
as unconstitutional. Normally, the disposition that the Within the baselines, we have laws on the base points and the
court would state in resolving the constitutional straight baseline method.
question is that it does not violate the constitution.
They say it in the double negative as not Section 2. All waters within the baselines provided for in
unconstitutional because there is a presumption of Section one hereof are considered inland or internal waters of
constitutionality. In some cases, you will come across the Philippines.
a disposition saying that it is not constitutional. That
is technically erroneous because with or without the If it is an archipelagic state, it should be, all the waters and the
ruling, it is presumed that the questioned act is group of islands within the waters inside the baseline. Outside
constitutional. the baseline, that will be declared as the territorial sea and it is
where the EEZ will have to be measured from. Again, only the
3. SYMBOLIC OR TEACHING FUNCTION first 12 is part of the territorial sea.
This is used when the issue is moot or academic or The terrestrial, aerial, and fluvial domains come with the
there is no need to resolve the issue because either concept of territory. Therefore, it will only extend up to the 12
one, some, or all of the conditions are not present but nautical miles if it is water. If it’s upwards then it goes up to
still the court opt to resolve the issue, so that there where technically it is already the space. If it is below the
will be some rules promulgated to guide the bench, space, then it is still part of the aerial domain.
the bar, and the public. To do so would avoid the
repetition of petitions filed in the future involving
similar constitutional questions. II. PEOPLE
Next item will be your People and most of the discussions here
July 22 (KDelaCruz) is on the concept of citizen. This is also a usual BQ with
respect to who are considered natural-born.
IV. THE PH AS A STATE There are two modes of acquiring citizenship in the Philippines,
politically:
I. TERRITORY
1) Jus soli – based on place of birth
[Sir talked about the recent decision of the Permanent Court of
2) Jus sanguinis – based on blood relations
Arbitration (PCA)].
We have consistently followed jus sanguinis regardless of place
Enforcement is difficult since:
of birth. Of one or both of the parents are Filipinos, the child is
 There is no sheriff to enforce the same; and automatically a Filipino. However, because of the fact that the
definition of who are Filipino citizens first came about in the
 While there can be some agreements as to the natural
Philippine Bill of 1902. They refer to those inhabitants of the
resources, the article in the Constitution, Article XII on
Philippine territory at the time of the adoption or the execution
National Economy and Patrimony limits foreign
of the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Those who are here in the
participation in terms of financial or technical assistance
Philippines as of April 1891 in that category and who remain
and actual exploration or exploitation may not be
here are considered citizens of the Philippines. Before the
constitutionally possible.
Philippine Bill of 1902, there were no Philippine citizens.
The other matter with respect to territory, mostly as asked in
Thereafter, they were already considered Filipino citizens.
the bar exam would be your applicability of the principle of
Because of that definition, there were peninsulares, meaning,
territoriality of criminal statutes. It would pose a problem
born of foreigner parents but are born or here already as of
where there is an act committed within a certain distance from
1891, and they are considered Philippine citizens if they did
the baseline. Of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, we only
not return under the Philippine Bill 1902. For a period of time
have the first 12 nautical miles as the territorial sea. Outside of
or up to 1899, SC decisions have applied jus soli as to them
that is no longer part of the territorial sea and therefore any
because they were born here even if they were born of
act which may be punishable under the criminal statute in the
foreigner parents or they were born in Spain but were here
Philippines cannot be made the basis of any criminal action
and continued to reside here.
here because outside of the 12 nautical miles, the Philippine
criminal statute would not apply.
But if the problem or the question is posed as to the violation a) WHO ARE CITIZENS
of the rights of the state to which the EEZ belongs, then
probably, that can be claimed on but criminal statutes no 1935 Constitution. ARTICLE IV
longer apply. Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
Article 1 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution.
National Territory
5|P a g e
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, naturalization but the naturalization decree is not yet issued or
before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to if issued, has not yet become final and the child was at least
public office in the Philippine Islands. conceived and thereafter born, that child could still elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
It seems that the law favors the child because to be a Filipino
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, citizen is the BEST citizenship in the whole wide world.
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
b) ELECTION OF PH CIT
As a matter of fact, your Article IV on Citizenship in the 1935
Constitution, No. 2 provides: CA 625 provides for one mode, which is formal election of
Philippine citizenship.
2. Those born in the Philippine Islands of
foreign parents who, before the adoption It is not so difficult, in the case of
of this Constitution, had been elected to
public office in the Philippine Islands. IN RE: CHING
Recognizing the fact that there were “foreigners” before who

The SC said there are 5 considerations
may be here or who opted to stay despite the lack of blood
relations have been considered Filipino citizens. 1) You are born at that time and circumstance of a
marriage;
The most discussed category of children are those who are
born of Filipino mothers and foreigner fathers. Under the 1935 2) By reaching the age of majority, you have to elect
Constitution, the fact of date is before January 17, 1973, the by executing a sworn statement or affidavit that you
efficacy of the 1973 Constitution. They are supposed to be have elected or chosen to become a Filipino citizen;
considered natural-born upon reaching the age of majority
3) You must also have a sworn oath of allegiance to
when they elect Philippine citizenship. And so, there are
the Philippine government and Constitution;
several complications because:
4) Those two documents must be registered in the
1) If the spouses are not legally married, common-law
appropriate LCR where your certificate of live birth
relationship, that illegitimate or natural child is
has been on file;
considered a Filipino citizen at birth.
5) You must have to do it within a reasonable time
2) But if it is the other way around, the father is Filipino
upon reaching the age of majority .
and the mother is the foreigner, the 1935 Constitution
says, that child is automatically a Filipino because the In the case of Ching, it took him 14 years. The SC said that is
father is a Filipino. not reasonable.
Does that assume that the union is legal as well?
There is a case cited there which is the case of Cuenco. It took
In the case of: Cuenco 7 years and the SC said that is also not reasonable.
While there is a 1950 DOJ Opinion that 3 years is a reasonable
TECSON vs COMELEC
time, the SC said that it is not a hard-and-fast rule. It can be
longer than 3 years, provided, the delay is justifiable or
This is the case of Fernando Poe, Jr.
reasonably explained why there is delay. Of course, the longer
If the father is a Filipino, regardless of the legality of the union it gets, the more unbelievable it will become because again,
with the foreigner mother, the child is automatically a Filipino. there is nothing difficult about electing Philippine citizenship.
But again, if it is the other way around, there are some more
The case of:
considerations.
MA vs FERNANDEZ
In the 1935 Constitution, in relation to Sec 1 of CA 63, one of
the grounds of losing citizenship is
This of is a case for failure to register or file the sworn
xxx statement of election and oath of allegiance.
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner SC said, that should not deny them to elect Philippine
if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she citizenship because the operative fact that should make the
acquires his nationality. election effective is the sworn election, not the fact of
registration. And so, if there is only a failure to register, as in
No naturalization, lost of citizenship is by mere operation of this case, they should not be held accountable for such failure
law by reason of marriage. That is no longer true in the 1973 and they should not suffer from such failure of the counsel
and 1987 Constitution. who so caused the registration of these documents.
So then, the question is, if the mother is deemed a citizen of
the foreigner husband by reason of marriage, can the child
born of that marriage still elect Philippine citizenship upon c) NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
reaching the age of majority?
Now, the definition of natural-born was first provided in the
The question to ask is, is there a Filipino mother (to speak of)? 1973 Constitution. There has been no definition of the same
If by operation of law, there will always be a Filipino mother. under the 1935.
But what if, the Filipino mother/wife also applied for If a child born of this marriage elected Philippine citizenship
naturalization in that foreign country? before January 17, 1973, the question is, is he not a natural-
born?
The answer is also a question. If there is at least a Filipino
mother at least upon conception, that child can still elect If at that time, before the 1973 Constitution, there could be no
Philippine citizenship. So, if the mother applied for answer because there was no definition yet.
6|P a g e
But when the ‘73 Constitution took effect, natural-born are In the old case of:
those citizens from birth without performing an act to acquire
citizenship. ONG vs HRET
Section 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to When he was a minor, the father was naturalized. What would
acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. happen to the minor child as to his citizenship? He also
becomes a Filipino citizen because he derives the grant to the
There has been some question on whether those children who father.
elect citizenship because they were born of that mixed
marriage, under the 1973 Constitution, are they considered The case of:
natural-born? The question is asked because they have
performed an act, at least, to perfect their citizenship. They VILANDO vs HRET
are foreigners during minority age because they followed the
citizenship of the father but they are given the option to elect It is the same with Ong. Before Lim Kai Chong was born, the
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. father was already naturalized. When the father was
Did they perform an act? naturalized, he is thereafter considered a Filipino. If the father
thereafter bears a child with his wife, the child is considered a
The answer is yes. Filipino from birth. Therefore, he is a natural-born citizen.
Are they natural-born?
So, the phrase “from birth” in the definition of who are
That is why the definition of natural-born was somehow natural-born refers to the fact of citizenship and not to the fact
analyzed and there are two operative phrases there. Citizen that the person has perform an act to perfect or acquire his
from birth or from birth need not perform an act to perfect or citizenship. Because even if a person has performed an act to
acquire citizenship. perfect his citizenship, which is not naturalization, that child is
The phrase “from birth”, does it refer to the fact of natural-born from birth even if thereafter he had performed an
citizenship or does it refer to the non-performance of an act to act to perfect or in the case of repatriation, to re-acquire
perfect or acquire citizenship? citizenship.
Your case of:

d) NATURALIZED CITIZENS
VILANDO vs HRET
Now, let us go to naturalization proceedings.
This explains that the 1987 constitutional definition of natural- How many modes of naturalization do we have?
born, which now includes expressly those who are born of
those mixed marriage under the ’35 and who elect Philippine We have three:
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority are also 1) Judicial Naturalization;
considered natural-born, was placed there with retroactive
application to correct the anomalous situation where children 2) Administrative Naturalization; and
born under those circumstances if they elect, they may not be 3) Direct Act of Congress.
considered natural-born citizen under the ’73.
Basketball-obsessed country the Philippines is, despite the fact
Just to avoid confusion and to ensure that they are also that we are small as people, we, every so often by direct act of
natural-born, then there was this expanded definition in the Congress, naturalize an African-American with a height of not
1987 Constitution. less than 6’11. So that we will have that center position. Putot
man gud ta tanan (you and I both, Sir), gusto gyud ta
The question of who are natural-born or not is normally raised makadaog ug basketball. Puso is not enough. Height is. Do you
in BQ as qualification to public office. All cases on citizenship think the team members of the other national teams do not
are actually in relation to qualification to public office as have puso? Yes, they have in other language for Spanish,
required under the Constitution or admin law. Your outline lists Corazon, whatever. All of them have puso as well. We do not
down at least 8 officers there who must be natural-born have the monopoly of puso as we do not have the monopoly
citizens. So when there is a case involving citizenship, it has of height.
always been in relation to qualifications to public office.
Because in the case of The third mode is quite difficult if you do not have a special
skill that the Philippines need or would want. If it is basketball,
it is easy. Congress would easily pass a law. But for any other,
REPUBLIC vs SAGUN
I do not know. In athletics, normally Congress would enact a
law. It is easier to be done before during the time of Marcos
SC said there is no rule providing for a proceeding or action in
because he was the only one issuing through PDs but now,
the Philippines which would entitle a person to file a petition in
you have 281 members of the lower house, 24 senators.
court asking that he be declared as citizen of the Philippines.
Therefore, you have so many to pay for if you want the direct
act of Congress.
So, while citizenship issues may be raised in a case, there is no
species of action or proceeding asking the court to declare you The usual route is your judicial naturalization. Remember,
that you’re a Filipino citizen. there are substantial requirements. Your memory aid there is
ARCPEN.
Now, in some cases that you have come across and read,
there is a suggestion, as obiter, that there is an informal mode 1) Age;
of electing Philippine citizenship. Meaning, performance of acts 2) Residence;
consistent with the choice or election that those born of that
mixed marriage has actually effectively chosen to become a 3) Character;
Filipino citizen. Those are obiter because those children or
4) Property;
those persons whose citizenships are in question need not
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. 5) Education; and
7|P a g e
6) Not otherwise disqualified by law. 5) Thereafter, the decision will be implemented and he
will be issued a certificate of naturalization and his
alien certificate of registration will have to be
Declaration of Intention. cancelled.
Procedurally, there must be a declaration of intention to be By the way, do not forget that the naturalization proceedings
filed one (1) year with the OSG, the office acting as the in the Philippines, if it involves a married couple, only the
counsel for the Republic. One year before the filing of the husband/father will have to apply. But if not, they have to
petition for naturalization in the RTC. apply individually.
Your case of: What would be the effect as to the foreigner spouse?
The wife need not apply. What will happen is that the
REPUBLIC vs LI CHING CHUNG foreigner wife will derive the citizenship granted to the
husband, provided she can prove that she has none of the
This restates the importance of that declaration of intention. disqualifications. It is not required that she possess all the
Here, the petition was filed 7 months after the filing of that qualifications. What is required is she has none of the
declaration of intention. disqualifications.
SC said, that is a mandatory period. The one-year period is As to the children, the naturalization law treats them
given to the State to verify the qualification and non- differently.
disqualification of the prospective petitioner-applicant. That a) If the children are born in the Philippines, they will be
should be sufficient time for the State. Less than that 1 year, it considered to have derived the citizenship granted to
will be considered as a violation of the requirements and it will the father.
nullify any grant of naturalization due to the failure to grant
the state of such 1-year period to ascertain. b) If they are not born in the Philippines but the child is
in the Philippines at the time of grant of
naturalization, the children are considered to have
derived the citizenship.
Procedure.
c) If the children are not born in the Philippines and at
1) You file a petition, then you have to present evidence the time of the grant, they are not in the Philippines,
that the procedures were followed. the children will be considered citizens during minority
but during majority if they opt to reside in the
2) Procedurally, the notice of hearing must have to be
Philippines, though they do not have to come home,
published because naturalization proceedings are
they just have to declare the intention that they want
proceedings in rem.
to reside in the Philippines, then they are still
It is binding against the entire Philippines. Anybody considered Filipino citizens. So, here, they are given
who is already a citizen, is therefore notified that the option not to become Filipinos when they reach
there is a foreigner who would want to become the age of majority.
naturalized and it if you want to be heard, you can
d) Children born after the grant of naturalization, like in
file an objection before the court (because you do not
the case of Vilando, are considered citizens of the
want more Filipinos, you are over a hundred million
Philippines regardless where they are born because
already and there is an American wanting to be here,
there is already a Filipino father to talk about.
wanting to play basketball in Hilas Pilipinas because
ga-hilas hilas ra na sila, di kadaog sa kagagmay nila).
You know the news? Philippines almost beat France. GO vs REPUBLIC
“ALMOST” (LOL!)
Also mentions that if the father/husband applicant
3) During the presentation of evidence, your case of dies after the filing of the declaration of intention, the
surviving spouse, obviously a foreigner, may opt to
GO vs REPUBLIC continue the naturalization proceedings. Opt, because
they may want to remain as foreigners.
Highlights the credibility of the witness requirement.
Two witnesses are required who must be credible by
themselves and their testimonies are credible that the
petitioner-applicant is qualified and does not suffer Administrative naturalization.
any of the disqualifications. Procedurally, it is administrative.
And the SC said that it is not enough that these There is a special committee on naturalization with the DOJ.
witnesses have known him to be so for a couple of This is actually a fund-raising scheme because there are many
years. He must be a resident of the Philippines for at individuals that need not go to judicial naturalization but by
least 5 years. Hindi yung kahapon mo lang nakilala or way of administrative proceeding. You just have to pay. So
kanina lang. That is the two-witness rule in your law or your IRR tells you how much. I think for every
naturalization proceedings. The same two-witness applicant, P200k and for the wife, P100k, for every child,
rule in treason in giving aid to enemies. P100k kay mura ka’g Pilipino, 12 kabuok, milyun-milyon imong
bayaran.
4) When the decision is had, we all know that there is a
two-year waiting period. Section 3. Qualifications. - Subject to the provisions of the
succeeding section, any person desiring to avail of the benefits
If the decision is favorable, it will not be implemented of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
immediately. There will be a pre-hearing after 2 years
to determine whether the petitioner continue to have (a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of
age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
8|P a g e
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and What is the difference? In judicial, it’s 10 or 5 years. In
believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution, and administrative, since birth. So, at the age of majority,
must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and applying RA 6809 (An Act Lowering the Age of Majority
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of from Twenty-One to Eighteen Years, Amending for the
residence in the Philippines in his relation with the duly Purpose EO 209, and for Other Purposes) in relation to RA
constituted government as well as with the community in 9139 (Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000), you
which he/she is living; must be a resident for 18 years.
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and 3) Character
secondary education in any public school or private educational Same. Good moral character, etc.
institution dully recognized by the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and 4) Property
civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school
Normally, it is gainfully employed. The old law in judicial
curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any race or
naturalization is P5000. Mas marami pa katyong pera sa
nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor children
mga wallet nyo compared to that property requirement in
of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar
CA 475.
schools;
5) Education
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business,
profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives It both requires, in judicial naturalization, that you be able
income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married to speak and write Philippine language, applies only to
and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family:Provided, minor children who must be schooled in schools not
however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are exclusive to foreigners which teach, among others, forms
college degree holders but are unable to practice their of government, Constitution, etc.
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of
their citizenship; But in Administrative application, the applicant must have
to be schooled himself in such type of schools because he
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino was born here, he has been a resident here since birth, he
or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and must have attended these schools. If he has children, they
must also attend the same type of schools.
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, 6) Not otherwise disqualified by law.
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
Those are largely the distinctions between Judicial and
Cf: CA 475 (Revised Naturalization Law) Administrative Naturalization.
Section 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, I mentioned earlier the case of REPUBLIC vs SAGUN, you
any person having the following qualifications may become a cannot file a petition seeking a declaration that you are a
citizen of the Philippines by naturalization: Filipino citizen.
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the You have here the case of
day of the hearing of the petition;
REPUBLIC v BATUIGAS
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a
continuous period of not less than ten years;
She filed a petition wanting her to be declared a Filipino
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the citizen.
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must
And the SC allowed it under CA 473 because she was married
have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
to a Filipino man. She is a foreigner. She was not so declared
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in
to be a Filipino so she filed this case eventually. She said she
his relation with the constituted government as well as with
was married (because the husband died already), the marriage
the community in which he is living.
was legal and the DOJ did not earlier grant it. So, she wanted
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not the court to declare her a Filipino.
less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must
SC said, yes, that is allowable because it is not a simple
have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
petition to declare her as a Filipino citizen. It was a claim
occupation;
under CA 473 that she is to be considered a Filipino citizen
administratively and failure of the administrative body, the
DOJ, to so declare her would constitute a violation of her right,
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish
if not in grave abuse of discretion.
and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, So, that should be treated differently from the case of Republic
in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by vs Sagun.
the Office of Private Education1 of the Philippines, where the
Philippine history, government and civics are taught or Q: If a foreigner man, marries a Filipino woman, what will be
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire the effect of that marriage in relation to naturalization?
period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior A: It just shortens the 10-year period to file.
to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine
citizen.
Q: If it is the reverse, the foreigner woman marries a Filipino
Substantially, what are the requirements?
man, what does it do in relation to naturalization?
1) Age
A: The foreigner woman will only have to prove
You must be of majority age. administratively with the DOJ that she is not disqualified by
law, she automatically becomes a Filipino citizen. Of course,
2) Residence
she has to prove that:
9|P a g e
1) She is married to a Filipino man; (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-
2) The marriage is valid; and
one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a Filipino
3) She is not disqualified by law. may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner
while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any
country;
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship The 5th item, is what you call denaturalization and it is
CA 63 common as well but this is for non natural-born.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH (5) By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization;
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR a) Loss of Citizenship
REACQUIRED
1) Naturalization in a foreign country
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. – A Filipino citizen
may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways and/or A very old case
events:
AZNAR vs COMELEC
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship; Former Cebu Governor Lito Osmena’s citizenship was
questioned because when he returned to the
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Philippines, after the lifting of Martial Law during the
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty- time of Cory, he practically represented himself to be
one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a Filipino a foreigner, an American. He filed a request to re-
may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner enter the country. He was issued several ACR but
while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any there is no issue that he was a natural-born citizen.
country;
Are these documents sufficient to show that he has
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, lost his citizenship?
the armed forces of a foreign country: Provided,That the
rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such commission SC said, he did not. There was no proof that he was
in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an naturalized in a foreign country. There was no proof
oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the that he subscribed to an oath to defend the
Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his constitution or law of a foreign country.
Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is
These documents do not show as well that there was
present:
express renunciation because permit to re-enter is
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or just a request that you be allowed to re-enter the
offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or country. ACR is a fact of registration. It does not
establish your citizenship.
(b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces on
Philippine territory with the consent of the Republic of the
That was also take up in the case of Vilando vs HRET
Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino citizen concerned, at
because the mother of Lim Kai Chong was actually an
the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said
ACR holder.
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto,
states that he does so only in connection with his service to Like Certificate of Live Birth, what does it establish?
said foreign country: And provided, finally, That any Filipino That your fact of birth has been registered.
citizen who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the
armed forces of a foreign country under any of the Does it establish your date of birth? (Wala niya
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be gitubag)
permitted to participate nor vote in any election of the Okay, so ACR establishes the fact that you registered
Republic of the Philippines during the period of his service to, as an alien but it does not establish that you are an
or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign country. alien or a foreigner.
Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign
country, he shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment What if I registered as an alien, would that make me
of his civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen; lose my natural-born status?
(5) By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization; Of course, not. It only proves that I have registered
as a foreigner when I entered into the country.
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a
deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless 2) Express renunciation
subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; This was applied in an old case of
and1
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner YU vs DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she
acquires his nationality.2 Mr. Yu was a naturalized Filipino. He may have a
Chinese-sounding family name but he was a
CA 63 has seven grounds in losing your Philippine citizenship. Portuguese national naturalized in the Philippines. But
The most common would be the first 3: he went abroad and represented himself as a
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country; Portuguese national.
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship; SC said, that constitutes express renunciation because
he used his Portuguese passport. He entered into
some contracts and agreements representing himself
not to be a Filipino citizen. That is express
1 Applicable only in times of war renunciation. There is nothing left than to interpret
2 Repealed under the 73 and 87 Constitution
10 | P a g e
said acts that he voluntarily and willingly announce

LABO vs COMELEC
that he is now no longer a Filipino citizen.
He ran. He was disqualified because his petition/application

But if you are natural-born, if would take a little more
was not granted under PD 725. He was removed as mayor of
evidence for you to be considered to have lost your
Baguio. Then he applied for naturalization.
Philippine citizenship because that is supposed to be a
birth right (just like an elective office in the When he applied for naturalization, you know every 3 years
Philippines). we hold a local election. The decision for naturalization has not
yet been final because there is a two-year waiting period. And
b) Reacquisition or Repatriation
besides, the SC said, you did not even comply with the 1-year
How many modes of reacquisition do we have? period to file the declaration of intention.
We have also 3 modes, the first is:
Isipin mo, pagkatapos ng election, na-remove sya, magfa-file
1) Judicial Naturalization; sya ng declaration of intention. After 1 year, magfa-file sya ng
petition. Assuming in one day, the petition was heard and
This is the most usual mode.
granted on the same day, may 2-year waiting period pa. So,
2) Direct Act of Congress; and when he ran for the next election, he is not still repatriated or
considered to have re-acquired is Filipino citizenship. Even by
You ask Congress to enact a law to consider naturalization by sheer lack of time. (Ewan ko ano nangyari sa
you to have re-acquired your citizenship, kanya ngayon. Faith healer na yata si Mayor Labo. LOL)
which is quite difficult.
RA 8171
3) Repatriation
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REPATRIATION OF
It is an administrative proceeding that you FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE
will be asked to renounce any and all CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF
citizenships and that you are going to re- NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.
acquire your former citizenship.
This is also a law on repatriation reserved for 2 types of
individuals:
Your outline mentions of 4 laws, at least . 1) Natural-born Filipino women who married and was
Sec 4 of CA No. 63 naturalized abroad by reason of that marriage; or
Section 4. Repatriation shall be effected by merely taking the 2) Former natural-born who is naturalized in a foreign
necessary oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth6 of the country by reason of political or economic necessity.
Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry. They can be repatriated under 8171 and that is just an
ordinary repatriation. There is a simple requirement of a sworn
That is reserved for items 6 and 7 of Section 1 of CA No. 63 on
oath of allegiance that you are renouncing all other allegiances
grounds on losing.
and that you are now swearing to owe allegiance to the
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a Republic of the Philippines, its Constitution, duly constituted
deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless authorities and its laws.
subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted;
Of course there are other requirements such as you are not
and
disqualified under the law (because there are certain
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner disqualifications there).
if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband's country, she
Section 1.
acquires his nationality.
xxx
(1) Person opposed to organized government or affiliated with
So (6), after the cessation of hostilities, mu-surrender ka sa
any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
Pilipinas balik, you may be repatriated. doctrines opposing organized government;
(7) When the marriage ties are severed, you may be
(2) Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of
repatriated.
violence, personal assault, or association for the predominance
PD NO. 725 of their ideas;
PROVIDING FOR REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN (3) Person convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; or
WHO HAD LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY
(4) Person suffering from mental alienation or incurable
MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL BORN
contagious diseases.
FILIPINOS
Note that repatriation is, by rule, only allowed for natural-born
This was discussed in the earlier case of Labo (not in the
citizens. It is not available to naturalized citizens because it is
outline).
easy to lose your naturalized status.
This is the creation of a Special Committee on Naturalization
Then, the latest one is RA 9225
under the DOJ and you just have to file an application that you
fall under that category and that you would want to be RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act
repatriated. No judicial proceedings. of 2003
The problem with the old case of Lazaro is that the Special This is an act to reacquire or to retain.
Committee on Naturalization has not yet acted upon his
petition/application so he is not yet deemed to have been Reacquire – if you lost your natural-born status by reason of
repatriated. naturalization in a foreign country; or
If you are familiar with the case of : Retain – Retain your natural-born status if there is an intention
that you will be naturalized in a foreign country thereafter.
11 | P a g e
Your law tells you that you only have to execute a sworn oath Generally-accepted principles of international law,
of allegiance. including international customs, by reason of
incorporation are deemed forming part of the law of
By the way, the case of Grace Poe discuss also RA 9225.
the land.
Who has read the case of Grace Poe in its full text?
Because of that she is deemed to be a citizen from
Is Grace Poe natural-born? (Asked that in the freshmen and birth.
someone answered, YES! Why? I heard it in the news.)
iii. It is also a given fact that she re-acquired by
Actually, there are basically, 3 main points in the decision. repatriation her former citizenship under RA 9225.
Grace Poe is natural-born because: Under RA 9225, or repatriation in general, one

reacquires his former status. So if one is formerly, a
1) Her parents are Filipinos. natural-born, he/she has lost it in any of the grounds
Why are her parents Filipinos? under CA No 63, if he/she reacquires it by
repatriation, what he/she acquires is his/her former
In the demographics for population in relation to men or status.
women in the Philippines, in the span of 5 years, SC used
statistics, 99% were Filipinos. Only 1% were foreigners. So, even if a person has performed an act later to
So at that time, in the span of 5 years when she was perfect or acquire citizenship, provided that person is
found in Iloilo, 99% of the population of the country were citizen from birth, that person will still be considered a
Filipinos. SC said that it escapes logic or common sense natural-born citizen.
that the foreigners constituting 1% at the time would But if you are not a citizen from birth, can you be a
come here, get pregnant, deliver the child and leave that natural-born citizen of the Philippines?
foreigner child in Jaro, Iloilo and leave the country. Most
likely, it would be a Filipino mother. 9225 gives you one situation. A person who repatriates
under RA 9225, his reacquisition of natural-born status will
2) SC said that she is natural-born. benefit the spouse, minor children, legitimate, illegitimate
The first reason used by the SC why she is natural-born is or adopted. That is the problem with that law.
because in the deliberations of the 1935 Constitution, Juan dela Cruz, natural-born, went to the States,
there has been a proposal that foundlings be included in naturalized in the States, married an African-American by
the provision on citizenship and that they be considered birth (para exotic pud gamay). They were not blessed with
natural-born. The proposal was not adopted not because any children. Then they adopted an African-American kid
foundlings are not considered natural-born but because from Sudan. They legally adopted the child under US laws
there were too few of them and even at the time 1934, (because nag ilis na man sya ug pangalan, si Brad Pitt, Jr.
the prevailing international covenant or treaty (the 1930 na man sya). He went back to the Philippines and
Convention on Nationality), they already believed that repatriated after the 2003 law, 9225.
foundlings are considered citizens of the place where they
are found. Will Juan dela Cruz (aka Brad Pitt, Jr.) be considered as
reacquired his natural-born status?
SC also mentioned that it is a fact that she is adopted.
YES.
This is the argument of the Chief Justice. Does adoption
give citizenship to a child? But before that, the question is What would be the effect of that reacquisition to the
asked, can you adopt in the Philippines a child who is not African-American wife and the adopted Sudanese child but
a Filipino citizen under our ordinary laws of adoption (not who he is an American citizen now?
the inter-country adoption)? Only Filipino children can be
9225 says it will benefit the spouse and the child. Yes,
adopted. So, even from that fact alone, she is supposed to
they will become citizens. That is the least that 9225
be considered a Filipino citizen from birth.
would do.
SC said that international law favors her why she is
Will they be considered natural-born or naturalized?
considered a Filipino from birth.
There are only 2 categories of citizenship in the
Then they cited several UN declarations, the 1930
Philippines. Either you are natural-born or naturalized.
Convention on Nationality Laws. The UN Convention on
There is nothing in between.
Declaration of Civil and Political Rights, of which the
Philippines is a signatory, the Philippines adhere to the And so, we move on outside of those questions. 
principle or rule of non-statelessness. The Philippines
If the grant of naturalization will benefit the foreigner spouse
should give citizenship to all those who are found here in
and the foreigner children, what would the FS and FC be?
the Philippines. And the 1930 Convention on Nationality
Natural-born or naturalized?
Laws, a foundling is deemed to have been born of citizens
of the country where the foundling was found. Naturalized because what they derive is naturalized status.
While we are not a signatory to that (1930 Convention), It is for each state to determine who are its citizens. So the
the SC said that is part of the law of the land by reason of correct question to ask is, is Juan dela Cruz a citizen of the
incorporation. Philippines or not?
International law can be part of the law of the land in 2 If the answer is not, it is not correct to ask the second
ways: question, so he is a citizen of what state then? Because that is
beyond Philippine recognition. We only determine the
i. Transformation; and
citizenship of a person based on our laws on citizenship. If he
An international law is locally legislated as well. So it does not fall as a citizen of the Philippines, it will not be our
becomes of the local law of the land because of concern of which state he is a citizen of.
transformation. An international law was transformed
But because of 9225 and if you remember
into a local legislation.
ii. Incorporation. Mercado vs Manzano
12 | P a g e
So, can a person with dual citizenship serve in government?

there are 3 situations why a Filipino may have another YES, provided it is not an elective office. It is an appointive
citizenship and these are based on involuntary acts regardless office.
of the fact that that person did not do anything, that person is
considered to have another citizenship applying the laws of Citizenship is viewed from the application of two sets of laws
another state. of different states. It is not viewed from the person. it is
viewed again from the laws of separate states.
1) A child born of a Filipino couple born in a country, not the Allegiance, on the other hand, is viewed from the person
Philippines, which follow jus soli. So he was just born and because it means owing allegiance to a sovereign state. A
without doing anything, he is considered to be a citizen of person with dual citizenship does not necessarily have dual
that foreign state; or allegiances. Conversely, just because a person has dual
2) In the case of mixed marriages, a Filipino woman or man allegiances does not mean that he has dual citizenship. A
marries a foreigner partner, who by reason of the laws of person may have one citizenship but may have dual allegiance
the country of the foreigner partner, he/she is deemed to to two different foreign states. Again, what is inimical to public
have acquired the citizenship of the foreign partner. She interest is dual allegiance and not dual citizenship.
simply married, did not apply for naturalization but he/she Is the law 9225 addressing dual citizenship as inimical to public
is also now considered a citizen of a foreign country; or interest?
3) A child born of that foreign marriage. While he is a Filipino Constitutionally, it does not. However, for purposes of elective
by reason of blood relations of the Filipino parent, he may office, you must have to be a Filipino citizen only. That is why
also be considered a citizen of the country of the foreign 9225 requires a sworn renunciation.
parent either by blood relation or jus soli, as the case may
be. That should take care of your citizenship.
In all these situations, it is independent of any act of that
person. But until 9225, a person may only have one citizenship
based on Philippine law – either you are a Filipino citizen or
you are not. That is the reason why the Constitution does not, III. SOVEREIGNTY
even today, address dual citizenship. It mentions of dual
State Immunity is also one of the average questions asked
allegiance which is inimical to public interest which is dealt
in the Bar Exam. It calls for your understanding of what is the
with in accordance with law.
concept of a suit against the State.
But 9225 changed that altogether because you can now
The state is immune even without your constitutional provision
reacquire and then become dual citizen. And you can retain
because it is the nature of the state. It is based on the
even if, eventually, you will be naturalized in a foreign country.
principle that there could be no legal right as against the state
There is now a recognition that a person, under Philippine law
which makes the laws on which all the right depends. Paano
because of RA 9225, may also be a dual citizen.
naman sila magkakamali? The state has the power to legislate.
That being said, however, there is a certain exercise of political
The Restatement in our Constitution is a limitation because can
rights under 9225 that would require some sworn renunciation,
be sued if it consent. If there is no consent, it cannot be sued.
specifically, elective public office. If one reacquires, or perhaps
retain under 9225, Filipino citizenship and would want to be For state immunity to apply, however, one must know when is
elected to public office, he must have to execute a sworn, duly that suit considered a suit against the state.
notarized renunciation of any and all citizenships. Therefore,
that person will no longer be a dual citizen. He will now be In all your readings, there are 3 basic types of cases with a
considered a Filipino citizen only. common denominator:
1) The Republic is sued by name;
MAQUILING vs COMELEC (2013)
2) An unincorporated government entity is sued.
Nobody noticed this case in 2013 but when Grace Poe’s case So, chartered corporations are outside of the
came about, they already cited this. coverage.
Mayor Arnado, when he ran, he executed a sworn renunciation 3) A public officer is sued in his official capacity but
of his American citizenship but in the interim, he travelled at responsibility rest upon the state.
least twice using his American passports. And he was
The common denominator is that the state will be liable in
disqualified. The news reports, mentioned that he is
case of any financial liability. This is based also on the fact that
disqualified because he is no longer a Philippine citizen. That is
all monies from the public treasury must be reason of an
not accurate because they just wanted to make the report
appropriation law.
applicable to Grace Poe (not that I voted for Grace Poe. I
didn’t vote, actually. Just to be clear). You cannot sue any of these of there is no corresponding
appropriation, to put it bluntly. If there is corresponding
What the Maquiling ruling was, based on CJ Sereno’s ponencia,
appropriation for that, no problem. If there is none, you
that when he travelled and used his American passport
cannot sue.
representing himself to be an American again despite his
sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship, he effectively
revoked his sworn renunciation, not that he is not a Filipino
citizen. When he effectively revoked his sworn renunciation, he CONSENT TO BE SUED
is in effect, dual citizen again, which is not allowed under Your old CA 3083 is still good law. That is your general express
9225, if you run for public office. So, he is a Filipino citizen and consent for any money claim arising from contract, express or
an American citizen at the same time. implied, you sue the state based on that.
If it is an appointive public office, the law requires a Implied Consent comes in the form of the usual
different renunciation. Still sworn, still notarized but it involves business contracts.
all dual allegiances, not citizenship. Normal BQ would give you a case, for example, Philippine
government ordered fighter choppers for the AFP in relation to
13 | P a g e
the modernization of the latter. Down payment was paid. The will be made from the national treasury if Congress so allows.
manufacturer delivered the choppers. It was not paid, sues the That is how it is normally done.
State or the AFP or Dept of National Defense for the payment
That is the efficacy of consent.
of the balance. Will the suit prosper?
It will call for your understanding of:
SUABILITY vs LIABILITY
1) Whether state immunity applies;
Now, in relation to State Immunity, the third type of case, a
2) Is there consent;
public officer is sued and ultimate liability rest upon the state
3) Assuming there’s consent, can you make that department because the public officer is sued in his official capacity. It may
liable?; still be considered a suit against the state and if there is no
consent, the suit could not prosper. If, however, the suit
4) If that department is liable, can you execute the
against the public officer is attended by circumstances such as
judgment?
bad faith, abuse of discretion, lack of authority, abuse of
Those are some of the questions calling for your understanding power, malice, then, liability will no longer be of the state.
of state immunity. Liability will already be with the public officer in which case,
state immunity does not apply. Ultimate liability will now rest
So, implied consent only purely commercial business contracts. upon the public officer in his personal capacity.
If it is governmental, you could not. That is not considered an
implied consent. You must have to sue based on its express For all the rest of those “incorporated” entities, could they
consent which is your CA 3083. claim immunity?
Then, second form of implied consent is if the state is Let us take the case of a local government unit. City of Davao,
to claim immunity, it would clearly be considered to be is this chartered? Is it a LGU with corporate powers under your
unjust. RA 7160? The answer is YES. And one of its corporate powers
is the capacity to sue and be sued.
But if you try to look at incidents under “to claim immunity is
clearly unjust”, these are cases involving actual expropriation. Can you sue LGUs? YES.
The State expropriates property without filing petitions for
But can they be held liable? The answer is it depends.
eminent domain or expropriation and thereafter, the property
owner sues for the value of the property. Depends on what?
Can the property owner sue even without express consent? 1) If it is governmental, you cannot make them liable.
YES, because if the state only had complied with the rules on 2) If it is non-governmental, you can make them liable.
eminent domain or expropriation, no injustice would have
While they can be sued, they may not be liable. That brings us
happened. And to allow the state to claim immunity would
to the distinction between suability and liability.
clearly be unjust to the property owner.
Liability is based on law, your law on damages or civil law
What is the name of the action of the property owner when he
provisions establish liability and where liability belongs.
files the case to sue for payment of just compensation?
Suability is dependent on consent. If it is a suit against the
It is technically referred to as inverse condemnation.
state and there is no consent, you can never sue. If there is
Does that action prescribe? consent, express or implied, then you can sue.
NO, because as a constitutional claim of a (constitutional) However, liability depends upon the facts, evidence, and the
right, there is no prescription. For so long as the value of the applicable law. It does not make, therefore, an entity liable
property actually expropriated has not been paid, the claim for even if it is suable. Liability is different from suability. You may
just compensation exists because technically, that be able to sue but you may not be able, necessarily, to make
expropriation or eminent domain exercised is not valid. that entity liable.
What’s a GOCC without original charter? This is claimable also by a foreign state if sued in our territory.
Based on international law, we could not place a co-equal state
Those which are established under the Corporation Code but
in our jurisdiction. There is equality among equals. Par in
the majority of the stocks or shares are already owned or
parem non habet imperium. To do otherwise would necessarily
controlled by government.
“vex” the peace of nations.
But if with original charter?
If they claim immunity from suit, that claim would have to be
There is a law creating that government corporation. respected, provided, it falls into those 3 categories of cases
and ultimate liability rests upon the foreign state.
In both cases, they have personalities distinct and different
from the State. Their monies, though public funds, are not One of the earliest cases with respect to a foreign state
monies of the public treasury. So that if they are liable for any claiming immunity from suit in the Philippines is the case of US
suit, you do not have to appropriate money from the public vs Guinto and the companion cases. The SC used the term
treasury. You just have to go to the banks and you can garnish “royal prerogative of dishonesty” and that was the one-
the bank deposits because that is allowable, if not, being liner bar question. Ang wala kahibalo, nagpataka lang ug
technically resorted to. tubag. But loosely now, it has been used to refer to state
immunity. Whether the one claiming is the foreign state in the
When there is consent to be sued, we all know that that Philippines or it is the Philippines claiming its immunity. It is
consent is valid from the initiation of the action up to the generally referred to as the royal prerogative of dishonesty.
rendition of the decision or the judgment. It is not valid from
the rendition to the execution. You do not execute like in
ordinary cases a decision if it is a suit against the state. You
In relation to immunity from suit, you have to remember those
have to present it to the appropriate office, probably the COA,
immunity statutes.
whether there is money. If there is none, then that will be
included for the appropriations next year and hope that you 1) The 1960 Convention;
14 | P a g e
2) The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic If it is a UN-created or attached agency, there is absolute
Relations; immunity from the application of the laws of the host country.
There is absolute immunity for those listed officials. For example, an ILO office renting a property in the Philippines
and it did not pay rent, can you sue for the unpaid rent?
Article 1
Technically, it is immune. Pero hindi naman siguro sila
For the purpose of the present Convention, the following mangungutang, nagbabayad naman yang mga yan. But just in
expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned case. The SC has decided, even way back after the war, that
to them: international organizations attached with the UN are practically
(a) The “head of the mission” is the person charged by absolutely immune from the application of the laws of the
the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity; host country.
(b) The “members of the mission” are the head of the What about other international organizations?
mission and the members of the staff of the mission; It is based on the agreements. Remember the case of
(c) The “members of the staff of the mission” are the
members of the diplomatic staff, of the administrative and SEAFDEC vs NLRC
technical staff and of the service staff of the mission;
SEAFDEC (Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Cooperation),
(d) The “members of the diplomatic staff” are the
7 countries of Southeast Asia joined together for the
members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic
development of aquaculture. The intent is to make the
rank;
SEAFDEC independent of the control of any of the member
(e) A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a states. If there is an office or facility of SEAFDEC found in any
member of the diplomatic staff of the mission; of the country of the member states, no law shall apply in the
host country against SEAFDEC. So, NLRC, supposedly, has no
(f) The “members of the administrative and technical jurisdiction. But again, it is based on the terms of the
staff” are the members of the staff of the mission agreement.
employed in the administrative and technical service of
the mission; If the agreement says that there is a restrictive immunity, then
so be it.
(g) The “members of the service staff” are the members
of the staff of the mission in the domestic service of the
By the way, perhaps you have read the case of
mission;
(h) A “private servant” is a person who is in the domestic Arigo vs Swift
service of a member of the mission and who is not an
employee of the sending State; This is a claim of immunity of the US government. This is a
(i) The “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts September 16, 2014 decision. This is the Writ of Kalikasan
of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of petition against the US government. Swift was the commander
ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including of the fleet, the USS Guardian, which ran aground in the
the residence of the head of the mission. Tubbataha Reef National Park.
3) 1963 Convention The SC denied the Writ of Kalikasan because of immunity from
suit since they were sued in their official capacity. USS
This provides for restrictive immunity on consular Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of
relations. All those in relation to official consular work of the US Navy. I think Captain America was there and Antman
consular officials and employees, they are immune from and all the rest.
the applicability of the laws of the host country.
On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for
its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17,
2013, while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on
Please take note that these conventions are claimable in the
the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha Reefs,
host country.
about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No cine was injured
In 2014 Bar Exam, there was a question: in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel
or oil.
An ambassador of Austria, officially assigned in the
US went to the Philippines in Pagsanjan, Laguna and After it was taken out, a Writ of Kalikasan was filed for the US
was caught committing pedophilia. The ambassador government to be made responsible for it. And the SC
claimed diplomatic immunity under the 1961 Vienna dismissed it. As to the financial liability, the SC said that they
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Is he allowed to could not be held financially liable because it is a suit against
claim that in the Philippines? the state and they could not be sued without its consent.
There was no allegation that there was malice, bad faith,
The answer is NO because is his official station is in abuse of authority or grave abuse of discretion. So, it is
the US, the applicability again only extends within the probably the latest case law on a foreign state allowed to
host country. Philippines is not his host country. The claim immunity from suit.
small boy was his host, probably.
So, if you are an ambassador of the Philippines and you With respect to Philippine officials, we must also remember
commit a crime in the Philippines, you are not immune, that there is another classification of immunity, not based on
although there are only a few courts which has jurisdiction the immunity of the state where public officials are sued in
over you. their official capacity, but because of the fact that they are
impeachable officers.
Who has jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, public
ministers, consuls? *Not answered Who are the impeachable officers under the Constitution?
What about international entities? 1) President;
2) Vice President;
15 | P a g e
3) SC Justices; allowance for him to be able to properly discharge his

functions.
4) Constitutional Commissioners; and
And so we are now in Congress:
5) Ombudsman
Only those 5 are immune from suit not because of state Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
immunity doctrine but because they are impeachable officers. Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and
They are immune from any suit that would effectively remove a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to
them from office, unless they are first impeached. the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
If the case, therefore, will not effectively remove them from
office, they can be sued, unless they fall under the state
immunity protection. 1. Composition, Qualification and Term of Office –
The President, however, is totally immune. That’s why if he a. Senate
names 5 generals, names Peter Lim, he could not be sued.
Panganlan niya tong tanan mga drug pusher mo ug kinsa mo. Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Ang buang-buang pud na uban, ngasunod sunod pud ug Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of
ingon, file-an gyud mo ug kaso. But the President is immune. the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
All of them are bulok. Sundon sundon pud sa ubang opisyal.
The President can do anything because he is the President. In Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-
the Philippines, we have a broader sense of immunity. born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is
at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
If you remember the case of President William Clinton of the registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less
sexual harassment case when he was still governor of than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
Arkansas, that case was filed when he was already sitting as
President and the SC of the US allowed it because the cause of Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years
action existed before he sat as President. and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon
on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No
In the Philippines, it’s all inclusive. For all the time, during the Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
duration that you are in the Office of the President, you are Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
immune from suit. The immunity even extends to “illegal” acts, not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
unless you are impeached or after the tenure, if you are not service for the full term of which he was elected.
impeached, you can now be held accountable for “illegal” acts
during the presidency. But until then, you can do anything.
That’s why President Duterte can do anything. Bahala’g unsa
iyang buhaton. Manghilak nalang mong tanan nga mga b. House of Representatives
generals, mga drug lords mo. Bahala na mong tanan. Si Peter
Lim, drug dealer na! Timan-i, patyon ta mong tanan! Article VI
Caught on video and shown on social media because he is Section 5.
immune from suit. All those under him should remember that
they are not the president, they are not immune. And in the The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
old case of Soliven vs Makasiar and Beltran vs Makasiar, than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by
only the President can claim the immunity, nobody could claim law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
it for him. Gisulti man gud ni ni President, so ako pung sultion. among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area
Dili na pwede. You can be held liable for libel under the RPC in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants,
for imputing a crime against the 5 generals or against Peter and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those
Lim because you are not the sitting President. Sana they will who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
just remember that the immunity of the President is not theirs system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
to claim but only for the President. You can share. You can organizations.
like. But never quote. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
July 26 (CRemoroza) ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated
to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
V. THE STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
GOVERNMENT indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
ARTICLE VI.
sector.
A. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (CONGRESS)
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a
Congress started its session yesterday and constitutionally the population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
president is supposed to deliver his message to congress which province, shall have at least one representative.
we traditionally refer to as State of the Nation Address. Under
US Traditions, it’s called State of the Union Address, it’s Within three years following the return of every census, the
supposed to be an executive message to the legislative branch Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
on what the executive will expect in terms of Legislative based on the standards provided in this section.
allowance, what the executive would need from Congress to
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
be able to help the executive to proper discharge of functions.
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
But traditionally, SONA has always been a reportorial process Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-
by which the president would present his accomplishments. five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the
Since this is a new president, most of the expectation was party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in
what the president would need from Congress as to legislative which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period
of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the
16 | P a g e
election. In the ordinary rules of domicile, we said that even if a

person is temporary absent thereat or therefrom, there is
Article IX, C an intention of returning (animus revertendi) and the
Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to intention of returning is continuing (animus manendi) .
evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to But because of these new requisites to acquire a new
the provisions of this Article. domicile, the SC said that there must be:
Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,  Animus manendi- intention to continue to remain in
organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those the new residence
registered under the party-list system as provided in this  Animus non revertendi- intention of NOT returning to
Constitution. the old domicile.
Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions
registered under the party-list system, shall not be represented MITRA vs COMELEC
in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors,
boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they The change of domicile as provided in the previous
shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with rulings would be intention, actual uprooting,
law. performance of acts consistent to the intent, good
Article XVIII faith to change once domicile, there is no requirement
or standard as to what the new domicile, new
Section 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by residence or house should be. As used in the case of
appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors, Mitra, SC said that there is no reason or justification
the seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2), for the COMELEC to use subjective non legal
Section 5 of Article V1 of this Constitution. standards. What are those?
 New domicile or new house of Mitra was not
The discussion mostly with respect to qualification is domicile,
appropriate for his social standing.
residence and domicile. Certain rules to remember, a person
can only have one domicile at any given time. There’s no such requirement. Even if your new house
is not consistent with your social standing. For so long
a) Domicile at birth, residence of person at
as the legal requisites or standards are satisfied, that
birth/Domicile of Origin
would be sufficient to establish or effect a change of
Domicile of origin. With respect of domicile of birth or domicile.
origin, that would be domicile during minority age which
obviously followed that of the parents. SABILI vs COMELEC
b) Domicile of Choice
The performance of acts to validly change a domicile
But when the person reaches majority age, that person need not be done in one occasion. These may be
may opt to establish his own domicile. done through time. The term used is INCREMENTAL
PROCESS. For so long that there is incremental
c) Domicile by reason of establishment of a family
process to establish that new domicile in the new
home
place, through time, there were acts constitutive of
Meaning if the wife opts to establish a domicile with the his good intention, that would be sufficient to satisfy
husband other than her domicile of origin, but if she the legal requirement to effect a change of domicile.
chooses to stay in her domicile of origin, the family home
They must be satisfied at the time of the election, not
would be her residence. She will maintain her domicile of
at the filing of certificate of candidacy. More so now,
choice, because the new residence as a family home is
the COC is filed about more than 6 months before the
only in compliance with the family code, there is no
election because of the automation.
intention to establish that as her new domicile.
Cases not discussed:

GRACE POE vs COMELEC
 Aldovino vs Comelec
We were taught before that there is a rule allowing one
 Talaga vs Comelec
to change his domicile. The rules were simple:
 Quinto vs Comelec
When can a person effect a change of domicile?
 Asistio vs Aguirre
 Actual removal or actual change of domicile
 Bona fide or good faith intention of abandoning
the old and establishing the new one Apportionment of Districts
 Performance of definite acts that will Basic rules:
correspond with the purpose
 For every province, there should be one district.
In the case of Poe, the Supreme Court made three more
requisites to acquire a new domicile.  For each city with at least 250,000 population, one district,
one representative.
To acquire a new domicile
 The 250,000 requirement in terms of population is
 Residence or bodily presence in the new locality mandatory for the first but directory in the next. For
example, one province has one representative
 An intention to remain in that new locality
constitutionally.
 An intention to abandon the old domicile
AQUINO vs COMELEC
ISSUE: WON Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency
Requirement. YES
IF the population increases, and it is near 500,000 the
17 | P a g e
district may be increased, that was part of the ruling in In relation to those representing marginalized, under
Aquino vs Comelec. SC said that the second 250,000 is represented or lacking in a well-defined political
directory rather than mandatory. So if it’s like 350,000, no constituencies they may represent either but not both, that’s
two district, it should be nearer the 250,000. why you have “sectors” which must not be marginalized or
underrepresented but they may fall under those lacking in
ALDABA vs COMELEC well-defined political constituencies.
Also, one of the changes brought about by this ruling written
The SC clarified that the population matter must be based by Justice Carpio, a majority of the members of those
on mid year figures as certified by the National Census representing are only required and they need not be
and Statistics Board. What is meant by mid year figures is members of the sectors they represent. Importantly, the
that year between elections. 2013-2016, in the middle of nominees themselves may either belong to the sector OR
that should be the determining period for the increase in they have a track record for advocacy in their sectors.
population or if possible, the creation of a new district.
This case was raised primarily because there were nominees,
UMALI vs COMELEC Mikee Romero, son of Regis Romero the one who will make
Davao a new city. Is he qualified as a nominee? What sector
does he represent? He is not obviously representing the
Mentions of who shall participate in a plebiscite. If there is
marginalized.
a creation of a new municipality, new LGU, there must be
a plebiscite held. The language used is “the political units
directly affected”. LPG: representing the dealers of Liquefied petroleum gas, they
are not marginalized, in fact they are rich. But, they lack well-
In the case of Umali, what was in issue here was the defined political constituencies that’s why they could
creation of a highly urbanized city from a component city participate.
in the province. Under the LGC, the president is
authorized to categorize a component city to a highly ABANG LINGKOD VS COMELEC
urbanized city if the conditions are present. But as to
whether who shall participate in the plebiscite, would the One Pacman, what does it represent? These new rules gave
residents in the component city which is now being way to participation of new parties and the nominees need
categorized as a highly urbanized one be the ones to not be members of the sectors but only required to have the
participate solely or would it include the province as well track record. In fact the party does not need to have a track
because residents of the component city will still vote for record of representing these groups or sectors, only the
the provincial officials but a highly organized city will not. nominees are required to have the track record. That was the
ISSUE: So which political unit are directly affected, only ruling in Abang Lingkod vs Comelec. Parties need not have
that of the city or including the province? track record, only the nominees are required if they do not
belong to the sector. If they belong to the sector, no need for
HELD: SC said that would include the province as well that track record. That they have advocacy for that sector.
because those are the political units affected by reason of
reclassification. The province is affected because of
With respect to the nominees, you have your case of
certain tax issues and other powers which the province
may have over the component city which it does not have
over the highly urbanized one. ANAD VS COMELEC
NAVARRO vs ERMITA The party List System Election Act require that each partylist
must submit a list of 5 nominees to the Comelec. Once
submitted, the names appearing in the list, in the order as
The province can be created based on:
they appear cannot be changed. No substitution is allowed
 Area AND Income; or unless for valid causes the member or the nominee has
ceased to become a member of the party or natural or legal
 Income AND Population causes.
Income 100 million
In the case of Anad, they only submitted 3 nominees so the
Area 2000 square kilometres Comelec disqualified the party. The SC said that failure to
But this does not apply to provinces to island provinces. comply with that rule section 8 of the law is a fatal defect.
This is the case of Dinagat island province could not Because what is supposed to be the intent of providing the list
satisfy the area requirement of 2000 sq km. of nominees (the list are submitted to the Comelec and they
are published) while electors elect the party not the nominees
per se but the requirement of publication gives the electors a
choice of the party and if you change, substitute the names
Party List System after submission of the list, worse, if you do not comply with
the list of 5 nominees, it will violate the transparency rule. You
RA 7941: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF
will not give the electors a fair chance to choose. The right of
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST
choice is affected. Simply saying, that you choose the party
SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
because of the nominees. Although that was not the intent of
The common discussion in party list, when you have the the law itself, but that was how the SC interpreted it.
When was the first party list election of the Philippines? 1998.
ATONG PAGLAUM vs COMELEC
Who were the parties who got nominated before, you have
MAD (Mamamayang Ayaw sa Droga) because of Richard
Stated the rules laid down in Ang Bagong Bayani case as to Gomez, the people are voting not because of the party, but
who can qualify to participate in the party list systems because of the nominees. That’s basically the psychology of
election. While they were 8 guidelines set in the Ang Bagong the Filipino voters.
Bayani case, the Atong Paglaum case of 2013 re-established
new rules which practically redefine who can participate.
18 | P a g e
b. All those parties who gained 2% of the votes cast for

BANAT VS COMELEC the party list will get one seat immediately. These are
what we refer to as guaranteed seats.
This was a re-evaluation of the old rule in determining the
seat allocation. c. The total number of guaranteed seats would have to
be deducted from the total 20% allocated for party
There is a by the way a petition now in the Supreme Court, list.
Gabriella now wants to have a third seat, they want a d. The difference would be the remaining seats. So this
reassessment of the rules in Banat. is where some of the rules in Banat, had been
misinterpreted.
BANAT VS COMELEC
e. The remaining seats would have to be determined
based on the percentage of the votes garnered by the
party.
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
f. Number of votes divided by the total number of votes
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes
cast, that percentage will have to be multiplied with
they garnered during the elections.
the total number of remaining seats.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least
g. The product will be the additional seats to be given to
two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
the parties which garnered the threshold of 2% and
system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
maximum allowable seats of 3.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to
h. If there are still remaining seats, then it shall be
the ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats
distributed to all the parties down the line until the
in proportion to their total number of votes until all the
20% allocation will have to be filled up.
additional seats are allocated.
As to rounding off:
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
more than three (3) seats. The basic rule before which is still good today, if it is not a .9,
you will not round it off to a higher number. Because rounding
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall
it off will give more representation to party and would deny
no longer be included because they have already been
other parties representation. It’s usually .996, but less than
allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the
that, a party is not entitled to rounding off if less than 9. We
remaining available seats for allocation as “additional seats”
will see how the SC will interpret this again based on the
are the maximum seats reserved under the Party List System
Gabriella petition which is still pending before the SC.
less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in
the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a
rounding off of fractional seats.
c. Synchronized Term of Office
In short, there shall be two rounds in determining the
allocation of the seats. In the first round, all party-lists which ALDOVINO VS COMELEC
garnered at least 2% of the votes cast (called the two-
percenters) are given their one seat each. The total number of ISSUE: If an incumbent elective official is placed
seats given to these two-percenters are then deducted from under preventive suspension, is that considered an
the total available seats for party-lists. In this case, 17 party- interruption in the term for purposes of term
lists were able to garner 2% each. There are a total 55 seats limitation?
available for party-lists hence, 55 minus 17 = 38 remaining
seats. (Please refer to the full text of the case for the  Term limitation for house of senate is 2
tabulation). consecutive terms.
The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, shall be used  Term limitation for House of Representatives
in the second round, particularly, in determining, first, the is 3 consecutive terms
additional seats for the two-percenters, and second, in
The first members of the senate by the way, while
determining seats for the party-lists that did not garner at
they will have to serve less than six years, that’s
least 2% of the votes cast, and in the process filling up the
considered a full term. While those first elected in the
20% allocation for party-list representatives.
House of Representatives, it was more than 3 years,
How is this done? from 88-92, it was still considered as 1 term even
more than 3 years.
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by the party and
multiply it against the remaining number of seats. The Held: Preventive suspension is not considered as an
product, which shall not be rounded off, will be the additional interruption for the term so that an incumbent who
number of seats allotted for the party list – but the 3 seat limit has been preventively suspended for one term, that
rule shall still be observed. term will still be considered as counted to him. The
SC used the term elected and served rule.
So basically the rules provide that all the parties participating
will have to be listed from top to bottom. There will be no
more threshold of 2%.
HISTORY:
The number of seats allocated to the party list will have to be
You remember the first elections in 92 there were 24 senators
determined which is 20%/ It was easier before because the
elected at large, but the first 12 will serve for the term of 6
Constitution placed it at 250. So 20% of 250 would be 50, but
years, the second 12, will serve for a full term of 3 years.
it has increased in 297.
Thereafter in 1995, the senators will be elected for a term of 6
a. The 20% must have to be filled up. years. So, those were the initial full terms before even if not 12
years total or for the house of representatives, not nine years
total, that will still be considered full term.
19 | P a g e
That’s the reason why because of the 2009 ruling in Banat vs

ABUNDO vs COMELEC Comelec, that the SC changed altogether how to fill up the
seats for party list representatives. Those parties which have
IT changed the previous rule. SC re-examined the cases garnered seats under the Banat Ruling, remember this was the
involving term limitation and they now said, that it is now no 2007 elections, so they were only “given seats” based on the
longer elected and served rule, it is now fully served rule. 2009 ruling in the Banat. So the first nominee that were given
Meaning the 3 terms must have been fully served, 3 year seats in the 2009 ruling were still eligible to run in 2016,
term or 6 year term must have been fully served. They laid because the 2007-2010 term was not counted as to them. Part
down rules based on previous rulings. of these nominees are also covered by the 3-term limitation.
You can only be sitting in congress for a particular party as the
1st or 2nd nominee as the case may be, for 3 consecutive
terms.
CURRENT RULES:
QUESTION: I asked the question, what if a nominee of say
1. If an elective official succeeds to a higher position
Bayan Muna on his third and last term as nominee will transfer
because of vacancy, that tenure in the higher position
to another party, this time Bahay Muna as first nominee and
is not considered as a term for purposes of term
Bahay Muna won 2 seats, is that person still eligible to sit in
limitation.
Congress for the first nominee of the new party. Remember in
2. The same VM if he has succeeded to the Mayor, the party list, supposedly you vote for the party, not the nominee.
term of office of which he was elected as VM will not So, in Anad vs Comelec, the public must be given a choice to
also be counted to him or against him for purposes of choose a party based on the Nominee, which is why it is
term limitation because he has not fully served the mandatory to submit the list of nominees. The 3 term
office of VM even if he was elected in that office limitation applies to nominees as well, so can that be in our
because he assumed a higher position. example be eligible and not disqualified by the 3-term
limitation?
3. Recall election, after 3 consecutive terms, he rested,
another one was elected, but there was a recall
election, Hagedorn vied for that election, SC said yes,
2. Election –
he was not actually on his 4th consecutive term
because there was a person who ran and was elected a. Regular Election
only that he was removed for a recall election.
(Hagedorn) Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
4. Mere conversion of an LGU will be considered for election of the Senators and the Members of the House of
purposes of consecutive term. (ex. Municipality to Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of
city) . Because it refers to the same LGU, same May.
constituency, and the evil sought to be avoided of this
limitation is still present. (Latasa) Regular elections of Congress we always have the second
Monday of May every three years.
5. Preventive Suspension, which is not considered as an
interruption to your term. That term will still be b. Special Election
tacked for you for purposes of term limitation.
(Aldovino) Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the
House of Representatives, a special election may be called
6. If an official has won in an election, but in an election
to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but
protest, he has lost before the end of his term that
the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
term will not be counted to him for purposes of term
thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
limitation. For example, a member of congress,
candidate has won, a protest was filed, won before ARTICLE IX-C
the end of the term, so the winner of the case
Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in
assumes office. Either of them, the protestant and the
special cases, the election period shall commence ninety
protestee will not be counted for the purpose of the
days before the day of election and shall end thirty days
term limitation. As to the one who lost, while he was
thereafter.
elected, he has not fully served his term. But, for the
one who won and eventually elected, he has not also RA 6645- AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF
fully served his term. (Lucy Torres case) FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES
7. Same situation, but the decision of the protest was
had after the term has been fully served, SC said that Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least
will be counted against the protestee. Even if the eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives
protestant won, but because the contest was decided at least (1) year before the next regular election for
after the term has been fully served, it is as if during Members of Congress, the Commission on Elections, upon
the term, the protestee has been elected and fully receipt of a resolution of the Senate or the House of
served and therefore that should be counted as to Representatives, as the case may be, certifying to the
him. existence of such vacancy and calling for a special
election, shall hold a special election to fill such vacancy.f
8. Abundo lost, he filed a protest and he won and
Congress is in recess, an official communication on the
assumed office. That term must not be counted
existence of the vacancy and call for a special election by
against him because he has not again fully served the
the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the
term. So, we now follow the elected and fully
House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall be
served rule.
sufficient for such purpose. The Senator or Member of the
Now, this is about local elections, but should it apply to House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for
members of Congress? The answer is Yes, as it may be the unexpired term.
applicable. So, the last 3 rules are important, during the
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall fix the date
preventive suspension, there was protest, when it was won,
of the special election, which shall not be earlier than
this may be applicable to them for the purposes of term.
20 | P a g e
forty-five (45) days not later than ninety (90) days from There’s not much to remember except there is a rule an
the date of such resolution or communication, stating increase to take effect immediately. No rule against
among other things the office or offices to be voted for: decrease.
provided, however, that if within the said period a general
The prohibition on taking effect immediately is based on
election is scheduled to be held, the special election shall
the expiration of the term of all the Members of the
be held simultaneously with such general election.
Congress approving the increase. There’s not much
RA 7166- AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED difficulty supposedly if it were not for the synchronization
NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS AND FOR of elections, and if it were not for the 12-12 in any given
ELECTORAL REFORMS, AUTHORIZING election year. There will be interlapping in the members of
APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER Congress, while there are 24 senators at any given time,
PURPOSES 12 senators may end the term of office after 3 years, and
there will be other 12 senators will continue. So, just
Special elections, there’s not much to remember except determine when the law increasing the salaries has been
that special elections in the House of Senate will always passed and determine when the terms of office of those
be called during regular elections. In the House of members approving it have expired already.
Representatives, if the vacancy occurs one year before the The other matter with salaries is there is no exemption
next election, there can be a special election. But for the from income taxation. Because that is not diminution.
House of Senate, it will always be during a regular
election. b. Freedom from arrest
So, Secretary Villar supposed to have won a congressional
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
seat in Las Piñas, so there’s a vacancy because he has
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
already taken his oath of office for a member of Congress
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
and a member of Cabinet. Those are incompatible office.
arrest while the Congress is in session.
He is deemed automatically resigned from Congress. For it
is more than one year, there can be a special election.
Largely depends if the Congress will call for a special The old rule in the 1973 Constitution, relatively restrictive
elections to fill up the vacancy. such that Members of Congress enjoys immunity from
arrest if they are going to attend, while attending or
coming from a session.
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC
In the present Constitution, the wording is that while
That was the 2001 elections. Special elections require Congress is in Session, the immunity of arrest is claimable.
notice to the public to inform the electorate that there So, regardless of the fact that the Member of Congress is
will be special elections to be conducted on this day for a not attending, going to or coming from, for so long as the
particular elections. But for the house of Senate, there is Congress is in session, the privilege is claimable if the
no need for a specific notification because the law fixes offense is covered as well. What is the benchmark? 6
when the special elections would be. As mentioned years and below.
earlier, it is during the regular election. So, when the law
Now, when is congress in session? Starting fourth Monday
established, electorate is notified already, so there is no
of July, to continue for a year until the mandatory
need for a separate notice. If it were for another
adjournment which is 30 days from the opening of the
position, Pres, VP, members of lower house, then there
next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and
is a need for notice.
legal holidays. What about recess? They normally have
recess during Christmas, Halloween, Valentines,
Graduations.
3. Salaries, Legislative Privileges and
Disqualifications –
c. Speech and Debate Clause
a. Salaries
Section 11 xxx No Member shall be questioned nor be
ARTICLE VI held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the the Congress or in any committee thereof.xxx
House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after In Congress or in any Committee thereof, they cannot be
the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the held accountable or liable in any other place not in
Senate and the House of Representatives approving such Congress. If the speech is given or made in Congress or in
increase. any Committee thereof. Presumably, Congress is in
session. They can be held liable for that in Congress under
ARTICLE XVIII the Rules of Discipline of the Congress.
Section 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise, the
President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred
thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the d. Disqualifications
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
(1) Incompatible and Forbidden Office
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty
thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the
House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Representatives may hold any other office or employment
Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
hundred eighty thousand pesos each. controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his
term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been created or
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
21 | P a g e
which he was elected. SC interpreted that those who belong to the minority
parties/party, would they still have to elect within
We made mention of the case of Secretary Villar, a themselves who will become the minority leader? Is that
member of Congress cannot take an incompatible office automatic that when you lost, you will become the
without forfeiting his seat in Congress except what is minority leader?
referred as to as Ex-officio positions. Let’s just assume that there is PDP Laban majority in the
Forbidden office is one where a member of Congress Senate and 2 were running for the position of Senate
cannot take despite forfeiting his office because that office President, so if we follow the logic of Bagilan, a PDP Laban
was created, or the emoluments thereof were increased member would become the Senate President. The losing
while he was a member of Congress. That’s why it cannot candidate who still belongs to the same majority party of
be taken regardless. PDP Laban will be the minority leader? I think there is no
logic in that.
(2) Other prohibitions
SO, following the Santiago ruling, those who belong to the
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of minority party/parties will still have to elect or choose
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before from among themselves who will elect the minority
any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or parties. Like in the House of Representatives, there are
quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither still many belonging to the minority. They should choose
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in from among themselves.
any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality thereof, including any government- July 29, 2016 (Lizada, Yaphockun, Bajenting)
owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during You must have heard yesterday that the “International Service
his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter for the Acquisition of the Agri-Biotech application on the BT
before any office of the Government for his pecuniary Talong” was reversed.
benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account
of his office. If you have been reading the summary of the 2015 ruling:
There’s nothing much with respect to other prohibitions International Service For The Acquisition Of Agri-
and duty to disclose, these are mostly prohibitions on Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
them having any financial interest but incompatible or Asia (Philippines), December 8, 2015.
forbidden office.
There are only a few points to remember:
The duty to disclose there:
The Intergenerational Responsibility, which is still good
 Disclose conflict in authored bills
law despite the reversal; and perhaps the issue on
 Disclose business or financial interest mootness.
 Duty to disclose under the law on 3019, you have to

International Service For The Acquisition Of Agri-
file your SALN
Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast
Despite the disqualifications or prohibitions, you will notice Asia (Philippines), July 26, 2016
that members of Congress are not prohibited from
engaging in any business, there is no duty to unload any The July 26, 2016 ruling reversing the December 8, 2015
business interest. They can continue their business decision stated that the issue has already become moot
interests provided it is not covered by the prohibition with because when the Court of Appeals issued the decision in
respect to pecuniary interests. May 2013 stopping the BT Talong field testing there was
nothing to stop, because the field testing has already been
completed. There were no more field testing being done and
4. Internal Government of Congress the permits issued by the DA has already expired, so the
decision of the SC affirming the CA decision has no basis in
a. Election of Officers
law and because for which the fear sought to be prevented,
what was the fear?
Section 16.
There was no full scientific data as to the effects of field
1. The Senate shall elect its President and the testing of genetically modified talong to the health of the
House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a people as well as to the environment, because there were no
majority vote of all its respective Members. Each testings, no more commercial productions.
House shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary. Again, if you’ve read that ruling, there was a part of the
decision quoted by the SC, just for personal knowledge and
You might have read in today’s papers that Representative consumption there is such a term/proceeding where the
Bagilan is claiming that he is the minority leader. presentation of evidence is not usual [direct examination-
cross-redirect-recross] because of the nature of testimonies
of these “witnesses” on GMOs as to its effect on health and
SANTIAGO vs GUINGONA
the environment, they had a different presentations. It’s like
everybody who are witnesses will be allowed to talk and
We already know that the elections of officers with counter each and other’s statements and the Justices will
respect to the speakership or the senate president as have to listen and make their own conclusions.
used in this case, anybody can vote whether you belong
to the party for the purpose of leadership, meaning the They are not to follow the usual presentation of evidence as
senate presidency and the one who lost does not provided for under the Rules of Court. That will be useful so
automatically become the minority leader. that there will be no interruption of expert testimonies, so at
least it’s still good. So that’s your reversal. Too late to read it
now, because it has been reversed already, but don’t forget
22 | P a g e
the Intergenerational Responsibility. 2. To adjourn, if there is no quorum and to compel

attendance that is the only provision in the
Constitution which allows a house to perform an act
with legal consequences despite the absence of a
B. QUORUM: quorum – this is to (1) adjourn; or to (2) compel
the attendance of a member who are absent in
Article VI Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its order to get or secure a quorum based on the rules of
President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by the house
a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House
shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. 3. Election of officers – majority vote
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do 4. Suspend or expel a member – 2/3 vote
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day 5. Discipline of members with less than suspension or
and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such expulsion – simple majority
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
provide. 6. Declaration of the existence of the state of war - 2/3
vote of Congress in Joint Session, voting separately.
The old case of: With respect to voting, in joint sessions, the rule is
that voting shall always be separate, unless expressly
provided to be joint. The only provision with joint
AVELINO vs CUENCO
voting here is when the President exercises his
Commander in Chief powers.
This simply establishes the rule that “quorum is based on the
number of members of the House” and it is based on “more 7. To grant emergency powers of the President – simple
than half of the number or membership of the house”. majority
However, that term “membership” is qualified that they only 8. Choosing the President in case of a tie – majority vote
refer to the number of members over whom the House can of both houses in joint session, separately voting
jurisdiction over. As in this case, there were absent in the
House of Senate. One was in the country and one was outside. 9. Temporary incapacity or disability – to decide the
issue, with respect to the President, 2/3 vote of both
The SC said that the membership should be based on 23, so Houses of Congress in joint session, voting separately
what is more than half? 12 is more than half of 23. So the
common understanding of 50%+1 is not correct or an 10. Confirming the choice of Vice President when there is
accurate characterization of what a simple majority is. no VP and the President may choose among members
of Congress – both Houses will have to choose by
We made mention with respect to voting when the House of majority, voting separately
Representatives supposedly elects who their Minority Leader 11. Amnesty Concurrence – majority vote of Congress
should be. If you’ve read on yesterday’s paper, the new
Minority Leader is Rep. Danilo Suarez of Quezon. 12. Treaty Concurrence – 2/3 votes of the Senate
If you remember in the initial vote, he only had 7; while 13. Commander in Chief powers, as mentioned earlier,
Baguilat had 8. Based on traditions it should be Baguilat, but if majority joint session and joint voting.
you follow strict rules on election of officers, the SC in the case
14. To amend or revise the Constitution:
of:
a. Constitutional Assembly – ¾ vote of both
SANTIAGO vs COMELEC houses, voting separately to decide; and
they shall constitute themselves as a
SC said that it should be based on Members of the Minority Constituent Assembly, which Speaker Alvarez
Party/Parties had chosen. said yesterday would be the mode of
amending the Constitution. He said it’s
cheaper, although the President said that he
The problem with proposition in that case of:
wanted a Constitutional Convention by
reason of expense in the conduct of the
SANTIAGO vs GUINGONA
elections, to choose membership in the
Convention, Speaker Alvarez made an official
Only the Constitutionally mentioned officers can be subjected pronouncement that they would prefer a
to ruling of the Court because that’s what the Constitution has Constituent Assembly.
required. Who are Constitutionally required officers to be
elected? It is the President of the Senate; and Speaker of the b. Constitutional Convention – there are two
House and no other. So as to the rest of the other officers, ways:
including to the Chairperson of Committees, they are supposed i. 2/3 vote of both houses, voting
to be in accordance with the Rules of the House. separately; or
Hence, as was argued by Baguilat which has also been ii. Majority vote of both houses, voting
followed by the Senate. Who is the Minority Leader in the separately and they will ask the
Senate? Recto, because he lost in the Senate Presidency; so by electorate whether or not a
tradition of the Rules, he is the Minority Leader. Constitutional Convention should be
called and eventually an election
With respect to other, quorum and voting, let us just a shall be held.
rundown.
1. Note: In 2/3 vote, there
1. For Members of these House “to do Business” you will automatically be an
need an ordinary quorum (simple majority), a election, if by majority
number more than half vote, they will still have to
ask the electorate if they
23 | P a g e
would want a discretion or opinion as what to constitute as disorderly

Constitutional Convention. behaviour.
SUSPENSION.
C. RULES OF PROCEEDINGS: With respect to suspension, there is a limitation. Remember,
in suspension and expulsion, there is a qualified vote required.
Article VI Section 16. For their limitations, suspension shall not exceed 60 days.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, This has been explained in the very old cases of:
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel ALEJANDRINO vs QUEZON
a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not
OSMENA vs PENDATUN
exceed sixty days.
Article VI Section 21. Where if a member of the House is penalized for disorderly
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its behaviour and has been reprimanded of perhaps a fine, the
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of supposed dignity of the house that has been affected will be
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of restored and the demographic representation is not
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, affected.
such inquiries shall be respected.
EXPULSION.
There’s nothing much to it, except that generally, it has if it With respect to expulsion, while there will be in the
has no rules particular to the exercise of powers of a house of meantime there will be a denial of demographic representation
Congress, the rule to follow is by reason of necessity because the member has been expelled, there is still a
or ex reinecessitare [or according the internet: ex necessitate possibility of electing a new member if it is proper for election
rei]. There has to be the power to promulgate rules involving in cases of vacancy; and therefore the denial of demographic
the exercise of power. representation will only be for a moment until the vacancy has
But for sure, if there are rules especially in Sec. 21 (on been filled up. In suspension it has been considered as a
Legislative Inquiry or Inquiries in Aid of Legislation), the qualified expulsion, there is no possibility that that position can
Constitution is quite clear that the rights of persons appearing be filled up because the incumbent is still the incumbent.
or affected by such inquiry shall be respected which shall Although, the function in their demographic representation
include all the protections available under the Bill of Rights. It continues to suffer, that’s why the Constitution limits it to a
is also required under Sec. 21 that such rules must have to be maximum period of 60 days. In the old case of
published. In this case of:
SANTIAGO VS SANDIGANBAYAN
GARCILIANO vs HR COMMITTEES
If you remember the case was commenced when Santiago
There is a rule that the publication must be, for every was still the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.
numbered committee. A more recent Congress cannot take By reason of her office, she was charged with violation of RA
advantage of the publication of the previous rules of the 3019 and eventually for she ran for Senate and won. When
previously numbered Congress, there must have to be a the valid Information was filed based on Sec. 13 of RA 3019
publication of all the rules of proceedings of a current which states that “when the valid Information is filed in the
Congress effective and applicable in all these proceedings. court for the violation of the said law, the officer charged
may be placed under Preventive Suspension”.
There was an issue raised there that whether Santiago, now
a member of the Senate, can be preventively suspended
D. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS
under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 when the power do discipline a
members is only lodged within the house of Congress.
Article VI Section 16.
The SC said, no.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the  First, because Sec. 13 is not a penalty, its
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel preventive suspension; therefore it is not imposed
a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not by the SB as a penalty, but imposed by law and is
exceed sixty days. not a penalty for disorderly behaviour.
 Secondly, the provision does not qualify as to
DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR. whether you should be holding the same public
Several matters to remember here: one is disorderly position for which you have been charged with for
behaviour. What constitutes disorderly behaviour? There is purposes of preventive suspension to be filed or
no such technical definition in the Constitution. So, it is for applied.
each house to determine what constitutes as disorderly And so, since she is still a public officer and there is a
behaviour. Can the SC review such determination of a house of valid provision filed against her, Sec. 13 should be
Congress on what should constitute as disorderly behaviour? applied as to her.
Hardly, that would be with the SC to determine of course if
there is really a grave abuse of discretion. Not wearing proper By the way I already remember the 2015 ruling of:
attire would not be supposedly constitute as a disorderly
behaviour which would mean that the expulsion of a member,
PADERINA vs SINGSON and
because what is so wrong about not wearing the proper attire?
Kung makasuotkangangbahag dun pwede. PADERINA vs HRET
Anobanamanyungmaongtagalog? Pwederindapatyun. So,
unless it is so unconscionable that the act should merit the Rep. Singson [not the Governor] was caught in Hong Kong
penalty of expulsion or suspension, the SC will not impose its bringing drugs and he was charged for trafficking. He
24 | P a g e
admitted and pleaded guilty to possession, so he was

US vs PONS
sentenced accordingly and incarcerated and thereafter
released after full service, then he ran for Congress.
Paderina here, wanted him disqualified for having been This highlights the probative value of a Congressional Record.
convicted of the charge in HongKong for drugs. The It states that a Congressional record is your transcript of the
Comelec did not disqualify him; the HRET did not disqualify events that happened in Congress during session days from
him. the opening of the session up to the adjournment.
The SC said, possession of drugs is not a crime involving The question here was “whether or not the bill was passed
moral turpitude, so for members of Congress who possess penalizing the accused during the session period?”
drugs, okay lang! [somebody giggled] No! This is only for Because extraneous evidence were presented to show that in
the purpose of disqualification. Of course it’s kind of fact, the session went over the allowable extra time, because
different if it is disorderly behaviour. I’m just relating it to this was a special session to end at particular day; and
that, because a crime against moral turpitude, according to because it was over midnight, according to the accused, it was
the SC is by nature immoral. It is not illegal or immoral not passed during the allowable extension on special session.
because the law says so, but because, by nature. Possession
is not by nature immoral, so it’s okay to possess, wag However, the Congressional records show that the
langmagpahuli. Wag rinmagtulakkasiyunangbawal. adjournment has had within the allowable extension of special
session. So which shall prevail now? The evidence presented
So the SC said there is inherently immoral about peddling or by the accused that it was passed beyond? Or the
selling, but possession for personal consumption, the SC is Congressional records that show that exactly ended at
impliedly saying, that’s okay; that does involve moral midnight on the last day of the special session?
turpitude. But if a member of the house is caught in
possession of illegal substance and charged accordingly, in The SC said, Congressional Records prevail, because that is an
our Criminal Courts, can that be disorderly behaviour? It can official document, by a coordinate branch of Government, no
be, because again, the house will determine what act or acts extraneous evidence will be allowed to dispute or disprove
disorderly behaviour, but for purposes of disqualification it is such fact.
not one involving moral turpitude.
That being said, all matters that is to be recorded in the
[Congressional] record or entered in the journal, you have to
outline this down on what matters that have to be entered in
E. JOURNAL AND CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS the journal. The journal entry would be conclusive as to them.
How many voted for yes/no? What were the questions raised?
Article VI Section 16. Who were present? What was the veto message of the
President? Those you can find in the journal or in the records.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and
Those you cannot find in the bill. Try to look in all the laws you
from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as
come across. Whose signature do you find? Senate President,
may, in its judgment, affect national security; and
the Speaker, the President and no other. Meaning, when all
the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of
other matters that are not in relation to the words and phrases
one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the
of a bill is in question, you go to the journal and the records,
Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its
but what the bill/law contains or covers, that should be with or
proceedings.
only in reference to the bill presented which is the certified or
the enrolled bill which eventually became a law.
(1) ENROLLED BILL THEORY
This is always discussed in relation to your Enrolled Bill
Theory. When you say Enrolled Bill, this is in relation to the 5. SESSIONS:
process which you know as Bill Presentment. This is a process
(1) REGULAR SESSIONS:
when a bill is passed by both houses already in its final form; it
is presented to the President for his action. That action is what
we refer to as Bill Presenting. When that bill is finally signed Article VI Section 15. The Congress shall convene once
into law, or lapse into law; then that is what your Enrolled Bill every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular
is all about. session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
continue to be in session for such number of days as it may
The question is always raised in relation to journal and determine until thirty days before the opening of its next
Congressional records because the Constitution requires that regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
there are matters that have to be entered into the journal, or holidays. The President may call a special session at any
entered in the Congressional records. What if there is a time.
variance between the words and the phrases in the enrolled
bill submitted to the President under bill presentment acted by Article VI Section 16
him; and in the deliberations in both houses where this bill was (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall,
processed in both houses. Which shall prevail? In all the cases, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than
where we have come across where the SC referred to three days, nor to any other place than that in which the
Congressional deliberations, they would refer to them only two Houses shall be sitting.
when there is “vagueness” or uncertainty in what is meant by
the words and phrases in the bill or law itself. Stated It shall commend on the 4th Monday of July and to continue for
differently, if there is no vagueness, then the words and one year until the mandatory adjournment, which shall be 30
phrases in the bill/law is clear and unambiguous, there is no days from the opening of the next regular session exclusive of
need to refer to Congressional Records or journal entries. So Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays. Their actual
shall be the law that should prevail. recess or breaks in the middle, normally there’s a break in the
On the other hand, if it is required to be entered in the journal Halloween, Christmas or Valentines, I don’t know why. They
or the matter must have to be recorded in the Congressional probably would want to spend time with their loved ones, legal
Records, those would prevail. Your old case of: or illegal. Also there is also a break during Commencement
Period up to Holy Week because they will be Commencement
25 | P a g e
speakers, as if they could give or inspire new graduates to be shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.
like them.
Article VII Section 18 (3)
GUEVARA vs INOCENTES The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
This is a very old case, is in relation to your Constitution proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
provision that “Congress will only function if both houses are in of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and
session”. There is no such thing as Congressional work official must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from
if one house is not in session. its filing.
That is the reason why that the provision states that “if one When the Constitution says “Special Sessions can be called at
house is moved to any other place or its adjournment for more any time”, that should not be, because Special Sessions can
than 3 days, it shall inform the other house” so that the other only be had when Congress is not in actual session. If they are
house will no longer function, because it’s useless for one in breaks or recesses, in the mandatory period or in
house to function, if the other house is already adjourned since adjournment, they can call for a Special Session.
Congress can only be in session if both houses are in session. One of the perhaps more familiar to you which was passed
(2) SPECIAL SESSION: was during a recess is the “Fair Elections Act of 2001”. If you
remember before the Fair Elections Act of 2001, there was a
Article VI Section 15 political advertisement during elections because, it was
regulated by the Comelec under Comelec Time and Space.
Article VII Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in There were rumors that, if you have noticed that it was passed
the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices during a Special Session; and the rumor was had that it was
of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in passed as “Horse Trading” or members of Congress so that
accordance with its rules without need of a call and within they will have more exposure in exchange for some political
seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a considerations. So, after the Fair Elections Act of 2001, they
President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than will already have more exposure. Those who can afford, can
forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such spend a little more for showing their faces, abilities and skills in
call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed TV, radio, print and other forms of media.
certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this
Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third
reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special (3) JOINT SESSIONS:
election shall be charged against any current appropriations
and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, (a) Voting separately
Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of
the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election Article VII Section 4 (Choosing the President)
postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be
occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
presidential election.cralaw
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he President and has served as such for more than four years
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President
xx x
as Acting President.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
the House of Representatives their written declaration that
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Article VII Section 11 (Determining the President’s
temporary disability)
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of xxx
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office.
their written declaration that the President is unable to Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the
shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in their written declaration that the President is unable to
accordance with its rules and without need of call.cralaw discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress
shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days accordance with its rules and without need of call.
after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is
26 | P a g e
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the

Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President
6. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS (ET):
shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.
Article VII Section 9 (Confirming the nomination of a Article VI
VP)
Section 17. The Senate and the House of
Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice- Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
President during the term for which he was elected, the shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three
shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be
the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
separately. Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as
the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
Article XVII Section 1 (Amending the Constitution)
proportional representation from the political parties and the
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
may be proposed by: represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the
Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty
xxx
days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
have been organized with the election of the President and
the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet
(b) Voting jointly only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its
Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such
Article VII Section 18 (To revoke or extend martial law powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
or suspension of privilege of habeas corpus)
(a) Composition of the ET
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed
forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, Still the same, there is Judicial component which is
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress composed of 3 Justices of the SC; and 6 members of
lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or the House which is the Legislative Component, filled
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a within the basis of proportional representation. Of
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the course you know how that is determined.
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part (b) Nature of the Functions
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege The nature of the function of the ET is quasi-judicial, it
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a being the sole judge relating to the election returns
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, and qualifications of members of Congress. As to what
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its election return and qualification is, you have the 2005
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such case of:
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Barbers v. Comelec that has been restated in the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation 2013 case of Tanada v. Comelec.
or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress,
if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety When you say return it includes canvass,
requires it proclamation, composition of the canvassers and
authenticity of election returns. When you say
We have ran down already. Just remember that the voting qualifications, it refers to matters that could be
shall be separately in all of those, except Sec. 18 of Art. VII, raised in a quo-warranto proceeding. When you say
when voting shall be joint because of the urgency of the election, it refers to the conduct of the polls, including
situation. In the experience when Martial Law was declared in the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
1972, most members of Congress and most members of the campaign and casting of the ballots.
Constitutional Commission of 1970-1971, who were part of the
“opposition”, were arrested. Some were able to get out of the The question is when would the power of the ET
country, but because of that, there were no more legitimate come to play? Meaning, when does its jurisdiction
opposition to what the administration then was planning to do. begin? The earliest ruling there is the 1995 case of:
To avoid the situation where there would be a tyranny of
numbers, simply by arresting or threatening to arrest those ROMUALDEZ vs COMELEC
who are against of the administration when the President
declares Martial Law, the voting here is joint. This was the former first lady; and the SC simply said
that it would have to require election proclamation
So if there are only 24 senators, they cannot say that the taking oath and assumption of office, before the ET
Senate is not with a quorum if there is less than half of it; or in could be imposed.
the House of Representatives because their number now will
have to be commingled. This has not been tested except when
Vinzons-Chato (2007) and in Limkaichong
the Declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao was had. If you
(2009) and Gonzales v. Comelec (2011)
remember, even before Congress was able to act on the report
of the President, the President lifted the declaration itself. So
there was no more need for Congress to vote on whether to The SC reiterated those and said even before the
revoke the said declaration. assumption of office, meaning if the election is 2nd
Monday of May, the term of office expires on noon of
27 | P a g e
June 13. If the candidate has been proclaimed and

has taken his oath even if June 13 has not yet
(d) Judicial Review of Decisions of ET
arrived, the jurisdiction will no longer be with
Comelec but with the ET. No need for assumption of The Constitution created the ET. It grants it such
office yet, because June 13 has not yet arrived. power as nobody can. Generally therefore, it cannot
be reviewed by the courts. It can only be reviewed
However, in the 2013 case of: again if we go back to the concept of Judicial Review,
when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Reyes vs COMELEC lack or excess of jurisdiction. For so long as the ET
decided cases based on what is considered as within
This involves the son sitting Justice Velasco. This was the sphere of these powers and authority, limited by it
asked in the 2014 Bar Exams. The SC clarified that and did not go beyond it, such decision shall not be
the term “proclamation” is qualified with the term subject of judicial review.
“valid proclamation”. The candidate must have been In relation to our discussion on Judicial Review with
elected and VALIDLY proclaimed, taken an oath and respect to Citizenship, we made mention on the
then assumes office or even if there is yet the office Comelec or the HRET. I think that we made mention
to commence. that if the issue has nothing to do with a member of
The ruling here was that the proclamation must have the house; the issue should refer or remain within the
to be valid. In the case of Reyes, before the oath was Comelec. So, one case:
taken and the term of office commenced, the
Comelec en banc has already ruled that the BUHAY PARTYLIST vs COMELEC
proclamation was already invalid, so the jurisdiction
of the ET could not be invoked because, there was no It involves the supposed ineligibility of BUHAY Party
valid proclamation. List, because it represents the religious sector.
BUHAY does not sit in that house, it is not a member.
The SC said in this case, the Comelec still had So qualification of a party to join the party-list system
jurisdiction. elections will still remain with Comelec, it will never
be with HRET. If the Comelec 2nd, 3rd or 4th nominee
They also made reference here to the 2002 case of: of a party listed are said to be disqualified for one
reason or the other, and they are not sitting, but just
CODILLA vs DE VENECIA named nominees, the issue will remain with Comelec
since it has nothing to do with a member.
If the proclamation is not valid or seasonably raised,
then the ET will not have jurisdiction over that issue One case involves a question “he should be sitting
as to that member. there” because his name was taken from the list
without authority. Should the issue be decided by the
(c) Independence of ET Comelec or the HRET? The SC, with the Comelec and
it goes directly to the SC for review under your Rule
Because the ET is supposed to be exercising the 64 in re: 65, because the petitioner is not a member
powers of a judge of all contests relating election of the house. Secondly, the issue is for him to be
returns and qualifications, it also must act placed in the list, not inclusion as a member of the
independently as a judge. That independence required house. So those are the issues regarding some of the
or would require that the legislative component powers of the ET.
members will have to decide cases pending before it,
devoid of any party affiliation. They shall resolve and
decide cases based on the evidence presented and
7. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (CA)
applicable laws; and they do not owe them being
there to the party which nominated them for purposes
of exercising their “quasi-judicial discretions”. In the Article VI Section 18. There shall be a Commission on
same breadth, they cannot be removed by the party Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex
which nominated them, unless for valid causes officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the
(natural causes like death or by legal causes). House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis
of proportional representation from the political parties and
With respect to party disloyalty, this can be a valid parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
cause for removal of that person from the represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not
party; therefore that person will no longer have the vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
right to sit in the ET representing the party which appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the
nominated him. Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by
a majority vote of all the Members.
However, this party disloyalty must not be in relation
to any act or pending case which that member has Article VI Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the
decided against his party. Party disloyalty can come in Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty
any form, but must not be in the form of deciding a days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
case against a member of the party. have been organized with the election of the President and the
Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only
So for example, the member has not been attending
while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
meetings of the party for several times despite due
majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
notice, or not being party dues or fees as provided
functions as are herein conferred upon it.
under their Constitution and By-Laws, that can be the
basis of party disloyalty, and therefore has no more
right to sit in the ET, but not in relation to any decision In your outline, as for now, it will only be in respect to
made against the interest of the party or any of its composition. There shall be 2 components of the CA. There will
members in the ET. be 12 members from the lower house; and the 12 members
from the house of Senate. The Senate President will chair, so
28 | P a g e
it’s a 25-member body. It shall also be made up on the basis (1) Scrutiny;
of proportional representation. So, unless you have the
(2) Legislative Inquiry; and
numbers, you will not be allowed to sit on the CA.
(3) Legislative Supervision.
The CA’s power is purely executive, not part of Congressional
or legislative power. It is in relation of the power of the
President to make some appointments particularly those falling
within the first sentence of Sec. 16 of Art. VII. They shall (1) Scrutiny
review or check the appointments made by the President and When you say Scrutiny this is where Question Hour would fall.
so purely executive in character. Normally, this would also include the budget hearings. You
On Review, can the decisions of the CA to confirm or reject an must be familiar with the budget hearings in relation to recent
appointment accordingly. Is this subject to Judicial Review? news that the current Congress has allowed the insertions of
The answer is generally No, because it is a matter of exercise PDAF in the proposed budget of 2017.
of discretion, unless the position requires a particular You may have heard news reports on members of Congress
qualification that fall under the first sentence (Heads of saying “we were made to submit a list of Saw and Hard
executive, departments, ambassadors, other public ministers projections” to be included/inserted in all the budget proposals
and consuls and officers of the AFP with a rank of colonel or of all the departments that you would want them to be.
naval captain). Meaning, Members of Congress will still have the power to
For Executive Departments under your EO 292, what is the “identify” which should be funded, and how much should be
minimum qualification for members of the Cabinet (Cabinet the fund. Then the bashers would say “Oh! Akalako under
Secretaries)? You must be a friend of the President, as a Digong meron parin PDAF when under the case of Belgica v.
minimum. Ochoa sabi dun PDAF is unconstitutional”.
Wala naman silang nilagay dun, of course it goes without What they fail to understand is this; in the:
saying that you must be of majority age. Hindi na kailangan
ilagay. Must you be a Civil Service eligible? Wala man BELGICA VS OCHOA
nakalagay. If you are the Secretary of Finance, does it require
that you must be a “finance guy” that you must have a What the SC said is the PDAF is not valid, in that PDAF
Masteral or Doctorate degree in Banking and Finance? If you form.
are appointed as DAR secretary, must you have a degree in
Agrarian reform? Must you be a farmer? Wala naman talaga. If What happened in the 2013 and before, was there was this
you check your Administrative Code, there is none there. So, particular lump sum of money, sabihin natin 280 members of
unless there is a law that requires qualifications to that office the lower house and 24 Senators. That was how the PDAF
which falls under the first sentence of Sec. 16 of Art. VII, the was, P70-80M times total number of members of Congress;
confirmation or the rejection of an appointment can hardly be and that was the item placed in the General Appropriations
reviewed by Congress. Ibang usapan yung Ambassadors, Act. Nakalagay dun: PDAF – (Total Amount) and that’s it.
because may minimum requirement siguro yan. I always
believed before that being an Ambassador, you must have to After it is passed to Congress and goes to the DBM for actual
take a Foreign Service Exam and you go through the rank. implementation, they ask members of Congress “Oh yang 80M
Meron nanga retired from military na general tapos naging mo saan pupunta?”,tapos sabihin “20M sabulsako… Yung
ambassador dun sa Timbuktu or somewhere. Ano ba naman ibasa… ”. That is what the SC said that is what is not allowed.
alam niya? So, that’s the minimum requirement. Iba rin yung They used the term “intermediate appropriation”, that lump
Armed Forces, because there is really a minimum requirement sum is intermediate, the actual appropriation is the
before you could be of a rank. All the rest there is no such identification made by Congress as to what should be funded
thing as review for their confirmation or rejection because they and how much should the fund be – that is the actual
are not subject to any [qualification]. appropriation the SC, which should have been in budget when
approved by Congress.
Let us skip first the plenary powers of Congress, because we
will take that up when we reach the Legislative Process. Let us Hindi pwede yung lump-sum tapos kayo nalang magidentify.
take the other non-administrative functions of the Congress. Here, what they did, at least in the proposal, just to explain to
the bashers. Before the approval of the Congress, they already
asked the members of Congress what are your proposed
projects and how much do you want it to be funded? And we
8. POWERS OF CONGRESS
will include that. You want a farm to market road in Makati,
(b) QUESTION HOUR AND LEGISLATIVE identify mo – 14 million for a 2kilometer road. So it must be
INVESTIGATIONS very very specific. You want scholarship for 20 beautiful
women here, there, ditto na school, dun na school. That is
Article VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon specific enough. And ilalagay yunsaDepEd (scholars) and sa
their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon DA (farm to market road), sa DP meron ka naman ibang
the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall kilometrong daan, i-identify yun: how long, where and how
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any much? And the DA will present it to the Congress for budget.
matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall Of course, i-pass muna sa President then sa Congress, pero
be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of that’s how it really works [in the real world]. But specifically
the House of Representatives at least three days before their they have already identified what is to be funded, how much is
scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to the specific sum for that item to be funded, included in the
written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. budget submitted by the President to Congress; and Congress
When the security of the State or the public interest so will approve it. So it’s not PDAF in its form, as declared in its
requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance form under Belgica. That’s how it’s supposed to be explain.
shall be conducted in executive session. Kay magingon, bakitwalang change? Hello? Pagbasa pud mo
ba! That’s how it’s done today.
OVERSIGHT POWERS OF CONGRESS. When the budget is approved today; and it goes to the DBM,
These are part of what we know as Oversight Functions of the member of Congress will now go and say “saan na
Congress. There are three oversight powers of Congress: yungpina-approve ko 2km, 20 scholars…?”. The members of
29 | P a g e
Congress [now] will not be allowed to do the identification of legislation.

the projects to be funded, and how much the fund should be,
because it’s already in the general appropriations bill. That is But all the rest, fair game; only that they can refuse to
the difference in this new administration and from the Belgica answer if there is a valid claim of executive privilege.
ruling. Just to make it clear, PDAF is still there but not to its When you say executive privilege, it must have to refer
form as the SC declared to be unconstitutional. So as early as only to that Presidential communication privilege.
now tell your Congressman now “yung aking…”,kay dili na
pwede later. In the old PDAF pwede because it’s a lump sum DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.
fund, now hindi na. The other being deliberative process which is general advisory
only but Presidential communication reflects only president
decision making that is why there is limited legislative inquiry
(2) Legislative Inquiry allowed.
These are the “Inquiries in aid of legislation”. What are things RULE ON PROXIMITY OR OPERATIONAL PROXIMITY.
that we have to remember here? There are rules to be
published, the rights of the persons affected (appearing and And under the Presidential communication privilege the
affected) are to be respected, and by reason of claim of concept of proximity or RULE ON PROXIMITY or
executive privilege. OPERATIONAL PROXIMITY is applicable. What does that
mean?
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
Even if you are not a member of the cabinet but DURING
In this executive privilege claim by GMA, there were a few DELIBERATION wherein the President has come up with the
cases decided. These cases tell you that heads of executive decision, you are considered covered by the executive privilege
departments can be called in aid of legislation. They cannot be because of the rule of operational proximity.
called only under Question Hour. Again, Question Hour is part
of Scrutiny; so if Congress would like to ask “what are you And so there is the question, katong waiter apil?
doing in your department? What do you need? How are you There is national emergency council, 4 former Presidents and 1
implementing the programs?”, they would call the head of that incumbent, they are meeting to what to do with China?
department in a question hour; and we know that in an Girahon nato. Nya ang waiter, nagyabu yabo ug tubig. Is he
Question Hour, there must have to be Presidential Consent covered by the claim of executive privilege because of the rule
before the member of the cabinet will have to appear. of operational proximity? Meaning, can you call that waiter in a
Questions must also have to be written and must have to be congressional hearing to ask what was taken up during the
before. Close door sessions may be had if it involves sensitive meeting? Unsa imong nadungog samtang nagabubo kag
issues or national security matters. tubig? That is the question whether operational proximity
covers the waiter?
Inquiries in aid of legislations they however can be called any
other resource person. So if it is not in relation to the function
of respective department, they can be called to attend an (3) Legislative Supervision
inquiry in aid of legislation. In the case of Senate vs Ermita
(2006) And third oversight function is LEGISLATIVE SUPERVISION.
There is one type of legislative supervision that is NOT
ERMITA considered unconstitutional.
The SC clarified that they cannot refuse a subpoena. They There is also one type that is considered unconstitutional. The
must be able to attend, but they can refuse to answer if it one which is NOT considered as unconstitutional is the
involves a valid claim of executive privilege. OVERSIGHT FUNCTION of Congress.
Who has come across in a provision of the law where there is
That’s the same ruling in: an oversight committee? Have you ever read a law, at all? I
mean from start to finish? Kasi ang oversight
NERI vs SENATE COMMITTEE (2008) function/oversight committee normally nasa malapit na sa
repealing clause, wala naman talaga yan sa unang articles.
If there’s a valid claim of executive privilege then they Who has read the OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTERS’ ACT?
can refuse to answer the question, but cannot refuse to There’s is an oversight committee there. And do you know who
attend the hearing and not to comply with the subpoena. constitutes the oversight committee? MEMBERS OF BOTH
HOUSES. Do you know what their powers/discretions are?
Also in the 2006 case of: During the conduct of election elsewhere, they can travel at
COMMANDER-in-CHIEF DOCTRINE. the expense of the government. So daghan kaayo
magoversight committee pag-overseas absentee voting. Suroy
pud dala kampanya ba. That is referred to as valid and
GUDANI vs SENGA
allowable legislative supervision. There is an oversight
committee to determined whether the law is
The power of Congress to compel persons to attend in implemented properly or if not, suggest amendments
inquiries in aid of legislation cannot apply to the Military to be made thereto. That is the purpose of legislative
as commanders in chief; the President can direct/order supervision.
military officers and personnel, by reasons of his powers
as commander in chief over them impose discipline as not INWARD TURNING LEGISLATION.
to attend any Congressional hearing. The other type which is NOT allowable is what the SC
This is not based on anything else but in the chain of considers as INWARD TURNING LEGISLATION.
command; based on the different brand of discipline in What does that mean? When Congress enacts a bill and it has
the military. been signed into a law, the power of the congress over that
That’s why they cannot be compelled to attend, if the law ceases, except under scrutiny, then you have inquiries and
President does not grant them permission or consent. then you have supervision.
They are therefore treated differently, in inquires in aid of
30 | P a g e
Inward Turning Legislation is a mode in which the Congress President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
exercises legislation even if the bill have left it, much worse, need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a
even if the bill has made into a law. special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be
held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days
One example is your PDAF in your
from the time of such call. The bill calling such special
election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section
BELGICA VS OCHOA 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon
its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations
The SC said that is a form of inward turning legislation. for the special election shall be charged against any current
How? In our example we said that there is a lumpsum appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of
appropriation approved by Congress and signed by the paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The
President into law. But how is that lumpsum appropriation convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the
being implemented? It goes back to Congress because special election postponed. No special election shall be called
individual legislators have been given the power to select if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date
which projects will be funded and how much the fund will of the next presidential election.
be. That is NOT ALLOWABLE.
As to SPECIAL ELECTION, both offices must be vacant.
The other most common form is the in relation to Because if only the office of the President is vacant, there will
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS. When not be a special election, the VP assumes. It only the office of
Congress delegates subordinate legislation, the power to the Vice-President assumes, there will be no special elections,
implement rules and regulations in relation to a law by an there will be an act of choosing among the members. In the
administrative agency. The validity of that IRR should not be meantime, the Senate President will act as the President, if he
made dependent to prior approval of Congress. is unable or unwilling, it is the Speaker of the House. [Sir talks
Meaning that is the old case of: about the meme is Facebook after the SONA regarding the 3
most powerful men are from Mindanao.]
ABAKADA vs PURISIMA
(f) REVOKE, EXTEND, SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE
Where the Congress said that the IRR must be approved
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
by Congress before it be made effective. That should not
be because the law has already left Congress, it had been
made into a law. Congress will not have any power over a Article VII Section 18 (mentioned above)
law except SCRUTINY, except INQUIRY, except
OVERSIGHT under Congressional Oversight as part of By the way, I think it is in the lower portion of your outline
supervision, not the prior approval of the IRR. (page 20 of the outline), in the 2012 case/ruling of:
Then we ask the question, who determines then whether the FORTUN vs GMA
IRR are consistent with the delegated authority? IT SHOULD
BE THE COURTS NOT THE CONGRESS. Because the As mentioned earlier, we have attested Sec. 18 Art. VII yet
interpretation as to whether there is a valid exercise of until the declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao. We
subordinate legislation is not lodged in Congress. It is to be were made to understand, at least from our readings of the
determined by the Courts and finally by the SC. Constitution that the President declares Martial Law and
suspend the privilege of the writ and makes a report to the
Congress within 48 hours. And Congress will have to hear
(e) ACT AS BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR and Congress can actually revoke it. Or if there is a request
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL for extension, Congress can grant the extension. But
ELECTIONS initially, it has the power to revoke. It cannot grant
approval in a sense because the call of the president is valid
Article VII Section 4 (4) upon initial call.
The returns of every election for President and Vice- So in this case of Fortun the SC wanted to clarify this.
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of CONGRESS ACTUALLY SHARES THE POWER WITH THE
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the PRESIDENT UNDER SECTION 18.
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. They do not exercise their perspective powers
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the sequentially/separately but rather JOINTLY. Under that
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty notion that “when the President declares it, it is valid”,
days after the day of the election, open all the CONGRESS CANNOT VALIDATE IT FURTHER. Congress can
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the only revoke it or invalidate it.
House of Representatives in joint public session, and
the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity So, they are not exercising their powers sequentially, or one
and due execution thereof in the manner provided by after the other, but initially it is jointly exercised by them.
law, canvass the votes. Because again, CONGRESS CANNOT VALIDATE WHAT IS
ALREADY VALID, at least upon call, Congress can only
As to BOARD OF CANVASSERS, there is nothing much to it. invalidate or revoke a declaration made by the President.
We will go back to that later.
(e) CALL SPECIAL ELECTION FOT PRESIDENT AND Do you understand?

VICE PRESIDENT
Article VII Section 10 (g) APPROVE PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTY

The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third
day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice- Article VII Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or
31 | P a g e
as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may Perhaps you have read the other day that the SC, with finality,
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines has resolved that EDCA is not a treaty, it is an executive
and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. agreement in relation to the Visiting Forces Agreement. In
ordinary layman’s understanding, EDCA did not allow the
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the presence of foreign military troops, bases or facilities here
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. because the VFA has already allowed those, that is why they
can be here not on permanent basis but on temporary basis.
We already said here that the power of the Congress is to Balikatan, joint exercise, refuelling, and destroying the
grant by law the amnesty by majority vote. The reason for this Tubbataha National Reef. If you have read that case, you will
is it is derogation of a sovereign right of the state to prosecute notice and you should be surprised that the SC said, in
defenders. So the derogation of a sovereign right can only be essence, LETS NOT GO AFTER THE AMERICANS BECAUSE NAA
grant by a law. Congress must therefore approve the amnesty NAMAN MI SABOT NA MABAYRAN TA. That is the bottom line
proclamation. of the ruling.
It is a question of whether the WRIT OF KALIKASAN should be
(h) CONFIRM CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS issued because there is damage of such magnitude to our
environment. And the SC will just say that there is already an
ongoing discussion that the US will pay us. But because it is
Article VII Section 9
the SC that said that, we cannot do anything but say OK. That
(mentioned above – voting separately) is the law of the land.
Article VII Section 16
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the (j) DECALRATION OF WAR AND DELEGATION
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the EMERGENCY POWERS
executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from Article VI Section 23.
the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. have the sole power to declare the existence of state
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other of war.
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts,
or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
boards. Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
The President shall have the power to make appointments may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
until the next adjournment of the Congress. thereof.
This is as to Commission on Appointments. Declaration of the EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF WAR is the
correct term. For sure, we don’t declare war because we
cannot afford it. We cannot even win it. But in order to train
(i) CONCUR IN TREATIES the resources of the State, in order to defend the State, when
there is war, then the Congress will declare the existence of
Article VII Section 21 (through the Senate) the state of war. It is just like the DELEGATION OF
EMERGENCY POWERS, the declaration of the state of war
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
authorizes the President to do things, to direct the doing of
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
some things outside if what law normally requires because of
Members of the Senate.
the existence of the state of war. There may be acts of taking
Article XVIII Section 25 over some franchises, some businesses, just to protect our
state when there is war.
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America Emergency powers. [Talks about giving Digong emergency
concerning Military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or powers regarding resolving the problem of traffic in Metro
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under Manila] What emergency powers actually does is to delegate
a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the the legislative power to the President. Your Section 23
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the vote cast provides for the limitation. This is not unconstitutional, why?
by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, Because 23 provides you the standards.
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
What are the standards?
That is under Section 21 with respect to the power of the (1) There must be a law, there must be a declared
Senate but with respect to as cross reference to Section 25 of national policy,
Article 18, when it is treaty when it is relating to the presence (2) Congress must provide for limitations, and
of military troops or facilities.
(3) The delegate must exercise the powers within the
There are two options that the Constitution allows: authorized limitations for the period that Congress
(1) Through the Senate (Section 21 Article VII) OR had allowed.
(2) Through the People (Section 25 Article XVIII). (4) Until revoked by Congress on resolution.
32 | P a g e
So even the Constitutional provision provides for the 4. Culpable violation of the Constitution
standards. Why is it needed?
5. Other high crimes
Ordinarily, if you take, for example, all the private bus
6. Betrayal of public trust.
companies along EDSA, take them about from where they are
and move them up. How do you do that? LTFRB will call them,
there will be a hearing, due process yan. The point is that, if
the President will be allowed to “LEGISLATE” extraordinary The last three grounds however: culpable violation of
legislative authorization then he can issue directives. If you constitution, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust
move up, can they complain? No they cannot. What is the have not been defined. But if you try to read the case of:
weirdest or common sensical suggestion to solve the traffic in
EDSA? Make EDSA one way, the other way is C5. [Talks about GONZALES vs OFFICE of the PRESIDENT
BGC, party after the bar.]
SC made a definition or characterization of this on what
So that is the nature of the emergency powers granted. It constitutes betrayal of public trust.
simply authorizes special legislative authority based on the
delegated power granted to the President during the period of The Constitutional Commission eventually found it
emergency. That’s why the only question now is, what is the reasonably acceptable for the phrase betrayal of public trust
extent of the power of the president in order to solve the to refer to "acts which are just short of being criminal
traffic situation in Manila? but constitute gross faithlessness against public
trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable
negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise of
(k) BE THE JUDGE OF THE PRESIDENT’S PHYSICAL discretionary powers." In other words, acts that should
FITNESS OR CAPACITY constitute betrayal of public trust as to warrant removal from
office may be less than criminal but must be attended by
Article VII Section 11 paragraph (4) bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other
grounds for impeachment. (Gonzales vs. OP, G.R. No.
xxx 196231, September 4, 2012)
If the Congress, within ten days after the receipts the last
written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days Not to file your SALN or to file an erroneous SALN is a betrayal
after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds of public trust, according to the case of CJ Corona. But who
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is determines that it constitutes betrayal of public trust?
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Those 24 less those-who-did-not-agree senators, most of
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise the whom are clowns. Kasi pag treason, bribery, graft and
President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of corruption they could not get out of the legal definition. But if
his office. it is culpable violations.
President’s temporary capacity would have to be resolved or This Gonzales case tells us that this betrayal of public trust is
decided by Congress in their joint session. the one crime ***. Problemalang, anonamanyung gross
faithlessness against public trust,diba? By writing a marginal
note saying “Ok”to get funds from the PCSO is not criminal.
(l) POWER OF IMPEACHMENT Mag sige lang ka ug “Ok, Ok”dinha, bisan 366 million na ang
nawala sa PCSO, it’s okay.
Article XI Section 2 According to the SC, because there’s nothing criminal about
your marginal note of “Ok”. So pwede na ang next president,
The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
“Ok.” Mangawat ta ma’am, pwede ibutang dinha “Ok.”
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Because SC said there is nothing criminal about the marginal
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
notes approving. By stating “Ok” that they shall use the
office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
money, because it does not prove that she benefitted from
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
that money taken or that she was part of the conspiracy if
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
there was such a conspiracy. Para bang you must have to
other public officers and employees may be removed from
prove that the money somehow got to her account. Paano
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
pagnilagay nya lang sa bahay, hindi dineposito sabangko?Hindi
bumili ng maraming gamit?
(1) Who are subject of impeachment?
A: There are 5 officers:
(3) Procedure for Impeachment
1. President,
2. Vice President Article XI Section 3.
3. Members of the Supreme Court (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any
5. Ombudsman Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen
(2) Grounds for impeachment upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof,
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten
A: There are six grounds: session days, and referred to the proper Committee within
1. Treason three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing,
and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its
2. Bribery report to the House within sixty session days from such
3. Graft and Corruption ----- 1st three are defined referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House
under the law
33 | P a g e
within ten session days from receipt thereof. But if the impeachable officer is impeached, the decision of the
House of Senate cannot go beyond removal and
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House perpetual disqualification for the simple reason that it is
shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with not a court of law. There is no criminal jurisdiction and
the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its therefore there is no other imposable penalty except those
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be two. Nonetheless, because the impeachable officer has been
recorded. removed already, then he can be subjected to any kind of
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment cases, criminal or otherwise, for the same acts for which the
is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, impeachment complaint was filed. He is no longer immune, as
the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and he is no longer impeachable because he is already impeached.
trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the AUGUST 2 (ELGuiritan)
same official more than once within a period of one year.
(3) Procedural limitations on the passage of law
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all
cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the
Section 26.
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of
the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme 1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be only one subject which shall be expressed in the
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the title thereof.
Members of the Senate.
2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate
You all know that it is initiated by the House of
days, and printed copies thereof in its final form
Representatives. The only discussion there is if it is not
have been distributed to its Members three days
initiated by a member of the lower house. If initiated by a non-
before its passage, except when the President
member of the lower house, it must be coupled by a
certifies to the necessity of its immediate
RESOLUTION of a member of the lower house even if a
enactment to meet a public calamity or
member of the Senate has filed a verified complaint. That
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
cannot be done unless coupled with a resolution of a member
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
of the lower house.
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and
Then, it goes to the Senate for hearing, there is an articles of the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
impeachment duly filed. But if the articles of impeachment is
Section 27.
filed already by how many? At least 1/3 of the members of the
lower house, the same shall automatically constitute the 1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
articles of impeachment to be directly filed with the House of becomes a law, be presented to the President. If
Senate where they shall be tried. he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise,
he shall veto it and return the same with his
As to the effects, there will be no more filing of a similar
objections to the House where it originated, which
complaint for impeachment within that one (1) year. And what
shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
is filed there, while initially before the case of:
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of
Gutierrez vs. HR Committee on Justice (643 SCRA 198, such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be
2011) sent, together with the objections, to the other
House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
The rule followed then was 1 year from the filing but it was and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members
clarified later. SC said it’s not the actual filing, it’s the referral of that House, it shall become a law. In all such
to the appropriate committee. When you file it, it is filed with cases, the votes of each House shall be determined
the Office of the Secretary General. The Secretary General will by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members
forward it to the appropriate committee. The rules will voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal.
calendar it, it will be taken up in the plenary and the plenary The President shall communicate his veto of any
will assign it to the appropriate committee which is the bill to the House where it originated within thirty
Committee on Justice and Good Government. That is days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it
when the one (1) year prohibition is reckoned. Not only the shall become a law as if he had signed it.
filing but proper referral to the appropriate committee. Within
that one year period no other impeachment complaint can be 2. The President shall have the power to veto any
filed. particular item or items in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect
(4) Consequence of Impeachment the item or items to which he does not object.
Article XI Section 3 We normally follow what we know as the 3-3-3 rule. 3

readings on separate days and there shall be printed copies at
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend least 3 days before the third and final reading and the
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold provisions says unless it is certified by the President as urgent.
any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to The first reading we know is the reading of the title and then
prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law. referral to the proper committee, committee will make a study
and then make a report to the plenary and that is where the
second reading will be had, where the deliberations,
If the impeachable officer is not found guilty in the House of
discussion, debates on each and every provisions shall be
Senate then that will be the end of it, there will be no more
made. After they have agreed on the final draft, there will be
similar criminal cases arising from the same acts subject of the
the third reading only for the voting; it has the journal entry
impeachment complaint to be filed elsewhere.
rule required, the voting on the third and final reading shall be
entered in the journal.
34 | P a g e
What is exempted with respect to the 333 rule? When there is means that after the third and final reading of the usual
a certification that the bill is urgent. passage that house would no longer amend the bill because
that already has been voted upon.
Can there be three readings or dispensing with the three
reading? The answer is no, but the three readings can be had When it is transmitted from one house to the other, after the
in one day. The reading of the title the plenary discussion to third and the final reading no amendment can be made but if
follow and after there be an agreement as to the final form the bicameral conference committee takes up two conflicting
and there can be voting immediately. versions they practically amend the conflicting version to
harmonize or to fine tune it.
Is there an exemption on the printed copy, when they vote
from that final draft as to be taken during the third reading? ISSUE: Does it violate the “no amendment rule”?
The answer is there can be an exemption on the printed copy,
you can vote even without the printed copy. However, it must
be noted that in order for the bill to be passed to the other HELD: The SC said NO, because when both houses or each of
house for its consideration, there must be a written draft of them have process a bill and approve their respective version,
the bill as approved by the previous house before it is the third and final reading they have not amended their
forwarded to the other house for its consideration, it cannot be approved bill as it was because it was “amended by the
as a verbal approved bill to be turned over from one house to bicameral conference committee not by the respective houses”
the other. While strictly, the separate readings on separate which earlier approved their respective versions.
days can be dispensed with, and voting can be had
simultaneously there must have to be a printed copy of the Now, we go to the Substantive Limitation.
approved draft before it can be turned over to the other house
for its consideration. Two types of substantive limitation:
1. Express- they are listed down in the bill of rights. All
of them, we remember the phraseology in the bill of
BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. rights, almost all of them starts with the negative
With respect to the procedure for passage of bills, you also word “no”, which emphasize that these are
have the matter of the Bicameral Conference Committee. limitations. No law can be passed in violation of the
In several cases decided by the SC the question of whether the bill of rights.
bicameral conference committee violates the provisions of the
constitution? The answer is no, you all remember the ARTICLE VI
bicameral conference committee is the creation of congress by
Section 25.
tradition, when there is a need to harmonize conflicting
versions of the bill coming from both houses, they will have to 1. The Congress may not increase the
constitute the bicameral conference committee composed appropriations recommended by the
mostly of the principal authors of the bill or bills from the President for the operation of the
different houses and they will have to harmonize such Government as specified in the budget. The
conflicting versions. form, content, and manner of preparation of
the budget shall be prescribed by law.
Also, it is not primarily passed to harmonized conflicting
versions only, sometimes they will constitute the bicameral 2. No provision or enactment shall be
conference committee simply to fine-tune what has been embraced in the general appropriations bill
agreed by both houses. unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its
NO AMENDMENT RULE. operation to the appropriation to which it
relates.
In relation to your bicameral conference committee is the “No
Amendment Rule”. In the cases again remember what you 3. The procedure in approving appropriations
have read, the voting on the final draft coming from the for the Congress shall strictly follow the
bicameral conference committee does not follow the procedure procedure for approving appropriations for
as required of the ordinary passage of the bill, meaning when other departments and agencies.
one house will pass a bill based on the 333 rule, there is such
4. A special appropriations bill shall specify the
a thing as, after the voting there shall be no amendment, in
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
fact the formal voting in the normal passage is that, each
supported by funds actually available as
member of the house will be called to pass his vote. Perhaps
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
the last one you have witness is the passage of the RH bill,
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal
where each member of the congress was called to cast his/her
therein.
vote and they were given some time to explain their vote.
That’s the usual voting during the third and final reading. But 5. No law shall be passed authorizing any
when the bicameral conference committee reports it is actually transfer of appropriations; however, the
the final draft as harmonized by the bicameral conference President, the President of the Senate, the
committee, they do not follow the normal rules for voting. Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and
In the old case of:
the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any
Arroyo vs. De Venecia item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other
This points out that the failure to object upon a motion for the items of their respective appropriations.
approval of the proposed draft will constitute as to a valid
voting. In relation to that, the question of whether the 6. Discretionary funds appropriated for
bicameral conference committee when they harmonize particular officials shall be disbursed only for
conflicting versions or fine tune the final draft, does it violate public purposes to be supported by
the “no amendment rule”? the ‘no amendment rule simply appropriate vouchers and subject to such
35 | P a g e
guidelines as may be prescribed by law. citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual

values, develop moral character and
7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the
personal discipline, encourage critical and
Congress shall have failed to pass the
creative thinking, broaden scientific and
general appropriations bill for the ensuing
technological knowledge, and promote
fiscal year, the general appropriations law
vocational efficiency.
for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed
re-enacted and shall remain in force and 3. At the option expressed in writing by the
effect until the general appropriations bill is parents or guardians, religion shall be
passed by the Congress. allowed to be taught to their children or
wards in public elementary and high schools
within the regular class hours by instructors
Section 28. designated or approved by the religious
authorities of the religion to which the
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and children or wards belong, without additional
equitable. The Congress shall evolve a cost to the Government.
progressive system of taxation.
Section 4.
2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and 1. The State recognizes the complementary
subject to such limitations and restrictions as roles of public and private institutions in the
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export educational system and shall exercise
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and reasonable supervision and regulation of all
other duties or imposts within the framework educational institutions.
of the national development program of the
2. Educational institutions, other than those
Government.
established by religious groups and mission
3. Charitable institutions, churches and boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of
personages or convents appurtenant thereto, the Philippines or corporations or
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all associations at least sixty per centum of the
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, capital of which is owned by such citizens.
directly, and exclusively used for religious, The Congress may, however, require
charitable, or educational purposes shall be increased Filipino equity participation in all
exempt from taxation. educational institutions. The control and
administration of educational institutions
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be shall be vested in citizens of the Philippines.
passed without the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress. No educational institution shall be
established exclusively for aliens and no
Section 29. group of aliens shall comprise more than
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury one-third of the enrollment in any school.
except in pursuance of an appropriation The provisions of this sub section shall not
made by law. apply to schools established for foreign
diplomatic personnel and their dependents
2. No public money or property shall be and, unless otherwise provided by law, for
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, other foreign temporary residents.
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, 3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or profit educational institutions used actually,
of any priest, preacher, minister, other directly, and exclusively for educational
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, purposes shall be exempt from taxes and
except when such priest, preacher, minister, duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of
or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, the corporate existence of such institutions,
or to any penal institution, or government their assets shall be disposed of in the
orphanage or leprosarium. manner provided by law.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a Proprietary educational institutions, including
special purpose shall be treated as a special those cooperatively owned, may likewise be
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If entitled to such exemptions, subject to the
the purpose for which a special fund was limitations provided by law, including
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the restrictions on dividends and provisions for
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the reinvestment.
general funds of the Government. 4. Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all
grants, endowments, donations, or
RTICLE XIV contributions used actually, directly, and
Section 3. exclusively for educational purposes shall be
exempt from tax.
1. All educational institutions shall include the
study of the Constitution as part of the Section 5.
curricula. 1. the State shall take into account regional
2. They shall inculcate patriotism and and sectoral needs and conditions and shall
nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect encourage local planning in the development
for human rights, appreciation of the role of of educational policies and programs.
national heroes in the historical development 2. Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
of the country, teach the rights and duties of
36 | P a g e
institutions of higher learning. bureaus to determine the implementation of the specifics of

the law and we normally referred to that as subordinate
3. Every citizen has a right to select a legislation that rule-making power of agencies because of
profession or course of study, subject to fair, highly technical knowledge or skills that these department
reasonable, and equitable admission and supposed to know for which they will fill in the detail for the
academic requirements. gap.
4. The State shall enhance the right of teachers
to professional advancement. Non-teaching
academic and non-academic personnel shall SUFFICIENCY OF STANDARDS TEST.
enjoy the protection of the State.
What is important is for congress in the law delegating the
5. The State shall assign the highest budgetary powers has provided sufficient standards. Sufficient standards
priority to education and ensure that to limit the authority of the delegate as to the parameters of
teaching will attract and retain its rightful the rules or regulation to implement the terms of the law. With
share of the best available talents through respect to sufficiency of standards while ideally the law must
adequate remuneration and other means of provide for all the standard set, it is not required in all
job satisfaction and fulfillment. instances. There are cases which you have come across which
would show that, even if one law has provided for a few
Section 25 and 28 of Article 6, these are referring to standards but in all the laws from the same subject matter of
your rules on taxation. Section 4, 5 & 3 of Article 14, the delegated authority have provided for so much standards
the same. Section 29 is your appropriations law that taken all together will be considered as sufficient to limit the
no money of the public treasury can be taken out power of the delegate then the standard is deemed to be
except through an appropriations law. So those are sufficient.
your express substantive limitations.
BELGICA VS OCHOA
2. Implied – there are two prohibitions:
(a) Prohibition against delegation of legislative One of the recent ruling here, that is your PDAF case and one
power. of the reasons why PDAF provision has been declared to be
unconstitutional is because there is undue delegation of
(b) Prohibitions against passage of irrepealable
legislative power, because of the “Lump-Sum PDAF allocation”
law.
in the general appropriations act granting individual legislators
By reason of the plenary or general powers of the the power to identify the project to be funded and also the
congress to legislate they have the power to repeal amount of the fund, that is in effect delegating the power to
existing law. The current congress cannot pass a law implement the general appropriations act or the power to
that cannot be repealed delegate to individual legislators the power to approve
appropriations.
With respect to non-delegation of legislative power.
The initial discussions here, you remember that the The power to approve appropriations by law under section 29
non-delegation applies to all branches under the COE, is lodged in congress as a body not individual legislators. The
that what they are exercising are already delegated PDAF Lump-Sum Allocation is according to the SC an
authority. What has been delegated to them cannot intermediate appropriations because the actual appropriations
be delegated further, but the reason why most of the which is for the project identification is the fund determination
cases for non-delegation are discussed with respect to is the actual determination the actual appropriation which is
legislative power is because congress has, more often done by the individual members of congress which they
than not delegated the authority to “legislate” cannot do because the appropriate is a collegial act not an
individual act.
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY. TUA VS MANGROBANG

Allowable delegation in the executive branch remember the
Involving RA 9262 where the authority under the law of
doctrine “Qualified Political Agency” the president is
punong barangays or the kagawad to issue barangay
authorized to delegate his powers as chief executive to the
protection orders or TPO’s. Petitioners contend that this is an
members of his cabinet.
invalid delegation of legislative powers because in the issuance
Very few powers under the constitution by reason of their of BPO or TPO only the courts are allowed and so to give it to
character or their nature cannot be delegated, almost all can the punong barangay constitutes invalid delegation.
be delegated.
The SC there is no delegation of legislative power much more
The usual exceptions to non-delegation, you have the so called invalid. What is granted under the law to punong barangay or
“delegation by reason of allowable test”: barangay captain is to execute the law, to issue a TPO is
enforcement to ensure that all laws and ordinances are made
1. the completeness of statute test; and
effective, it is not an exercise of legislative powers.
2. the sufficiency of standards test
DESINI VS SOJ
COMPLETENESS OF STATUTE TEST. This is with respect to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
under sections 24 and 26, it created the Cybercrime
Under Completeness of Statute, which is no longer used
Investigating and Coordinating Center and one of its powers
now a days, it is characterized by a law the congress,
under section 26 is to formulate a national cyber security plan
completes in all its terms all the delegate will do is to
and extend immediate assistance of real time suppression of
implement the terms of the law but that cannot be done now
cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response
because of modernization of life has made human activity
team (CERT). Petitioners contend that there is no sufficient
more complex and for which reason congress has created
standard for the CICC in formulating a national cyber security
certain technical offices or offices with technical skill and they
plan because the law does not provide specifics as to what are
have delegated the authority to these offices, department or
37 | P a g e
the parameters for this national security plan.

IMBONG VS OCHOA
SC said that the law is of sufficient standards:
(1) because the law defines what cyber security is, that should On the RH bill. What is the title of the RH bill? RA 10354,
be considered by the CICC in formulating the national plan Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012.
because cyber securities defined in the law as a technical One of the questions raised is the preliminary issue that it
term; violates Section 26(1) of Article 6, that a bill must embrace
only one subject to be indicated in the title. The SC is of the
(2) SC said there is the policy of the law, in one of its policy opinion that this is actually a population control measure, in all
declaration that it is to prevent and combat such cyber its provisions it has principally provided for the reduction of
offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation and the country’s population. There were a lot of provisions
prosecution so on and so forth. regarding education, information but it is to make available
population control measures natural or otherwise and so the
Those according to the SC are sufficient standards for the
question is, is this violative of that section, that there is one
CICC to formulate the cyber security plan. While ideally the
title and is indicated in the title?
law should provide the specifics as to the parameter. If you
remember the case involving the amendment of the Labor
Code, creating the Regional Tripartite and Productivity Board. What are the reason for this “one subject, one title” rule?
There are 3 traditional reasons for this according to the SC:
That is an ideal delegation of power where there are sufficient
standards because that provisions provides for guidelines on 1. it is to prevent log-rolling or hodge-podge legislation
how the regional wages should be set by the wage board, meaning there shall be no insertions;
ideally but it does not mean that it is true in all circumstance, 2. it is to apprise members of congress of the subject of
for so long as a reading of the entire law including the the intended legislation;
declaration of policy even whereas clauses could be considered
to determine whether or not there are standards set for the 3. For the public to be made aware of what the subject
delegate to exercise the power and whether based on these of the intended legislation is, so that they could
standards they are sufficient to properly delegate legislative determine if they want to.
power Ideally, the title must have to give an indication of what the
subject of the bill is, so that if there are any insertions of
provisions in the bill which has no reference to the subject as
Exceptions to Non-Delegation: indicated in the title then that may be considered as an invalid
provision.
(1) Delegation to the people, which is actually in its truest
sense is a reservation. A power to legislate is a sovereign CRUZ vs PARAS
power and what congress exercises is merely delegated by the
sovereign people and so when there is part of legislative power There was an ordinance enacted pursuant to the national law
in Section 1 of Article 6 given to the people under initiative and granting LGU the power to regulate business providing for
referendum, it is not actually a delegation in its truest sense nightly entertainment (?) (ex. night clubs), the local ordinance
but actually a reservation. enacted pursuant to that national law, prohibited the
The entire scope of legislative power has not been delegated operations of establishments providing for nightly
by the sovereign to the congress, part of it has been retained entertainment. SC said that is not valid because that does not
by the sovereign but because initiative and referendum could conform to what has been granted. The title is merely to
not be exercised without an enabling law and it is in that sense regulate, the provision provided for a prohibition.
delegated authority and so we have now the law in initiative
and referendum people can now exercise legislative power
reserved by them to themselves in national as well as in local
Again, In the case of:
legislation.
Remember the only difference in local and national initiative is IMBONG VS OCHOA
probably the requirement on percentage of qualified electors
to sign the petition, the petition being your draft legislation. The SC said that even if the central idea is to reduce
The second difference is that in local legislation there is a need population in the country, even if the entire RH law, the whole
to demand, you must have to demand from the local legislative idea of contraception prevails, still it does not violate the “1
council to enact an ordinance on the proposed legislation and title, 1 subject” rule.
if the local council refuses or fails to act on the demand within
30 days then initiative in the local level can be initiated, in the The SC said that the title need not be a full index or catalog of
national there is no requirement of a prior demand. the all the contents or the minute details of the bill. The rule is
sufficient if the title is comprehensive enough as to include the
general object which the statute seeks to effect.
9. Legislative Process In the case of the RH law the textual analysis of the various
(1) Requirement as to Titles of Bills provisions shows that both reproductive health and
responsible parenthood are interrelated and germane to the
overriding objective to control population and the SC further
ARTICLE VI
said that this is consistent with the declared policy in section 2
Section 26. that the right to sustainable human development would
include the right to health, which includes the right to
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
reproductive health and also the demands of responsible
one subject which shall be expressed in the title
parenthood.
thereof.
It ended the discussion by saying, considering the close
Most discussed here, is the “one subject, one title”. Your intimacy between "reproductive health" and "responsible
latest case on this perhaps is the: parenthood" which bears to the attainment of the goal of
achieving "sustainable human development" as stated under
38 | P a g e
its terms, the Court finds no reason to believe that Congress amount and as to the project to be funded.
intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of
the assailed legislation.
PRESIDENT’S VETO POWER.

In relation to this is the so called Line-item veto or Item
(2) Requirement as to certain Laws
veto power of the President. What is line-item? It is a
Origin of Bills specific, singular sum of money for a specific project. But it is
also said in the case of Belgica, that it can be a singular
There are bills that must originate from the House of
amount with percentages but each percentages must refer to a
Representatives. They are listed in your constitution and the
particular identified project and that is also item because at
reason for that is the nature of those bill require wider
least there is a specific amount of money, there is a specific
representation. The discussion on the origin of bills is that
percentage of that lump-sum and there is a specific project
primarily on what are this bills but rather what can the senate
already identified in the general appropriation. It destroys the
do or cannot do with respect to this bills.
line-item veto of the president, this is one of the reason why
What the provision prohibits is the House of Senate acting on the PDAF is considered unconstitutional is because if it were to
the same type or kind of bills before receiving the approved be accepted as a valid item the lump-sum appropriation
and final draft of the version of the lower house. There is no without the president knowing about the projects to be funded
prohibition for a member of the senate to file in anticipation of and for how much.
the approved draft of the lower house its version of the bill of
The president will never be allowed to choose whether he will
the senate. Because filing is not acting on the same bill. Again,
allow certain expenditures or whether he would veto some
what is prohibited is for the senate to process its own version
because the item in the PDAF is the entire 25B. The purpose of
of the bill which must originate from the lower house under
the line-item veto of the president in cases of appropriations is
the constitution before it receives the final and approved draft
for the president to be allowed approve which those it would
of the lower house. Example it is a taxation bill to increase the
agree on and veto those they will not agree on without
coverage of the expanded value added tax. Can the member of
following the entire general rule on veto on the recall. The
the senate file its own version of the proposed expansion of
entire 25B the president may before it accepts everything,
the E-VAT? The answer is yes, even if they have not yet
approving it even without knowing where the money would go
receive the approved draft of the lower house. What the
or it would veto the entire appropriations of 25B to the
senate cannot do is process that bill as filed, acting as the
prejudice of the projects which are legitimate or should be
senate, meaning processing it 1st,2nd,3rd, reading before it
funded legitimately.
receives the final draft. Filing is not prohibited, acting as a
senate is what is prohibited pending the receipt of the
approved final draft from the lower house. ARROYO VS AQUINO
Is the senate bound by the final draft as approved by the That is the DAP ruling. In relation to section 25 on
lower house and received by it, and to process its own version transfer of funds the SC mentioned that the DAP is not
of the bill? The answer is NO, the house of senate can even valid because it violates section 25(5) for five reasons: (3
pass a bill totally different from that which has been passed by lang ang gi-enumerate ni sir)
the lower house. What is prohibited is to process its own
version before receiving the approved draft from the lower 1. There is no law authorizing transfer of funds.
house. The general rule is that there shall be no transfer
of funds unless there is a law authorizing it. The
law can only authorized those officers mentioned
(a) Appropriations Law. and those officers mentioned are the President,
the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
The provisions in your appropriations laws must have House of the Representative, the Chief Justice of
to comply with what the constitution provides the SC, and the Heads of the Constitutional
specifically Section 25(2) there is a definition of what Commission. So they can actually be allowed to
an appropriations provision is and that is what transfer funds if there is a law allowing it.
referred to as item.
2. The transfer was made to augment items not in
In the same case of: the appropriations fund. Section 25(5) requires
that the transfer of the heads of office as listed
BELGICA VS OCHOA in the constitution must be made within the
same office and only for those items authorize
The SC used as a ground to declare the PDAF as by congress to be funded.
unconstitutional because it is not an item as of the 3. If there are savings which is also the next reason
appropriated value in section 25. An item supposedly for the the transfer was made even without any savings.
SC is the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable There should be savings in an appropriated item
parts of the appropriation or of the bill. An item of to be used to augment for another appropriated
appropriation must be an item characterized by singular item also.
correspondence – meaning an allocation of a specified singular
amount for a specified singular purpose. That is what is
referred as a line-item.
CROSS BORDER TRANSFERS.
Again the PDAF in its form is a lump-sum appropriations. The
amount is specific enough but there is no specification as to And one of the important reason here to which the SC made
what the amount is to be used for because as we were made another terminology is what we now know as Cross-Border
to understand the 17M in the lower court and about 200M in Transfers. The head of the department can only transfer
the House of senate and for them to identify what are to be funds legally if there are savings or appropriated items to
funded and how much the fund for the identified project. That another item also with an appropriations within his own
is not an item, an item is supposed to be specific both for the department. It cannot be used by him to augment items in
other department of the government.
39 | P a g e
Please take note that this unauthorized cross-border transfers president cannot release those condition because they are
has resulted to the filing of criminal complaints against PNoy part of the line-item approved by congress for appropriation.
and Abad because this ruling did not apply Operative Fact
doctrine (Note: Doctrine of Operative Fact – Acts done However, if the provision for an appropriations bill does not
pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared conform to section 25(2) meaning it is not supposed to be
unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done there and that is the Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision,
after the declaration of unconstitutionality) as to them and the president can delete or veto or remove it from the
then when the news came out that they have been charged appropriations bill not because of the line-item or item veto
before the ombudsman. power of the president but because of the doctrine of
inappropriate provision it should not have been there to begin
Do you know what the nature of the criminal cases filed with and so the president has the power to remove or veto
against them? Technical malversation and you know what the that and not include it in the appropriations bill because it is
penalty for technical malversation? They will be laughing their inappropriate.
way out of jail. It is not plunder because when you transfer
funds from one item to another or for non-appropriated item
or cross-border transfer there is no misuse of the funds for
your personal benefit, he still spends it for government August 3 (EGuiritan)
purpose although it is not technically allowed.
V. THE STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL
So this is your Arroyo vs. Aquino ruling, violation of section GOVERNMENT
25(5) requirement on appropriations.
ARTICE VII
B. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
TAX LAWS.
Tax laws there is not much with respect to the constitution, 1. The President
they are only general provisions. Uniform rule and Equitable
a. Qualifications
taxation, Tax exemption and Real Property Taxes, Income
Taxes for Non-Stock Non-profit institutions. Perhaps for
purposes of real property taxation, the discussion will be Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a
limited only in so far as the constitution is concern, the natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to
property must be directly and primarily, exclusively used for read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
education or similar exempting purposes. If they are not election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
directly and exclusively used then they are not exempted from immediately preceding such election.
taxation an in relation to that it is not the ownership but the Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
use of the property that determines the exemption. same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and
in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.
VETO POWER.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
President’s veto power. We make mention on the general Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
rule on veto. Veto all or none at all as applied to generally all
kinds bills submitted to the president certified and after bill Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected
presentment that you cannot accept a portion and veto or by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
reject the remaining unless it is an appropriations type or begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day
revenue bill. With respect to revenue or tariff bill it is difficult of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years
to identify what are the specifics because it is either the tax thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.
rate or the _ of tax, it doesn’t want tax to increase a particular No person who has succeeded as President and has served as
tax rate so he just veto or reject those items and the other such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to
parts remains. the same office at any time.
With respect to appropriations laws, if it is a line-item. The No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive
president is not allowed to veto a portion of a line-item. In the terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time
case of: shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
service for the full term for which he was elected.
BENGZON vs CA Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday
PCA vs ENRIQUEZ
of May.
There was a listing and there was an item for retirement fund The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
and there were list of officers in that item as to who is entitled duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or
to that retirement fund. The President deleted certain public city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
officer. President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of
canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
ISSUE: Is that allowable? days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the
HELD: The SC said NO, because the item of the sum of presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint
money is supposed to be related to all those listed as to who public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
shall be entitled to the retirement fund. So the president authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided
cannot veto or reject a portion of an item and let the other by law, canvass the votes.
parts remain especially when what is vetoed is a pre-condition The person having the highest number of votes shall be
for the expenditure. proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal
Congress can provide for a condition or pre-condition for an and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be
appropriation or expenditure. If that is how congress has chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
approved it, you can spend it provided these are satisfied the Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
40 | P a g e
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the 10 days a month. So the question is, can the president
certificates. maintain an official residence here? The Constitution mentions
of an official residence, that official residence is any place
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all where the President intends to reside. It is not the Malacañang
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of or the guest house or Bahay ng Pagbabago as it is called now,
the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for it sets the difference between the President who is continuing
the purpose. blaming even though he is quite away and the President today,
Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, that is why even the name has been changed. It is to ensure
the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall or at least assure that the expenses for maintaining the
take the following oath or affirmation: President will be by public funds. As you noticed in the
Constitution as it being done now with respect to Vice
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and President Leni Robredo, there is no such privilege as official
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or residence. So Leni Robredo will continue to ride the bus going
Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its to Naga because there is no such thing as official transport.
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and
consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." When President Duterte went home one time taking the
(In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.) commercial PAL flight, the question is of course, the seat you
are occupying not on the business class, but on the economy
Ruling perhaps in row or for “poor people”. That has to be paid by government
funds, no problem. But what about the two rows before him
and I think two more rows behind him? They were not
POE vs COMELEC
occupied for security reasons. So patyon nimo ang Presidente
didto unya asa ka muambak sa eroplano to escape arrest.
There is a definitive ruling that she is a natural-born citizen Well, I do not know why that was the security protocol, but
and that she has reacquired her natural born status under nonetheless, those are part of the privileges of the President.
9225 and that she had also complied with the 10-year
residency requirement after she had abandoned her own To let a common-law partner is also part of that, to reside in
residency with US, established a new residence or domicile in Bahay Pagbabago, at least sleep for some nights. That is part
the Philippines way before the elections of 2016. of the privilege at least of the President.
As to one other contention there that there was a previous
statement under oath that she was a resident of the
1. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
Philippines in relation to her certificate of candidacy for the
House of Senate, the Supreme Court said that that was an Other discussions on privileges would be PRESIDENTIAL
honest error because she only indicated the number of years IMMUNITY. Does the privilege of the President which is not
sufficient to satisfy the residency requirement for the position shared by the vice president until the vice president becomes
she was applying for. Evidence would show, as the Supreme either the acting president or the successor to the office of the
Court has taken note of that she intended to transfer her legal President?
residence or domicile in the Philippines consistent for
complying with the 10-year residency requirement. We understand the rationale behind the President’s immunity
is to prevent a situation where the President will hesitate to act
immediately upon the demands of his office for fear that he
will be subjected to a case. In fact, the presidential immunity
will subsist after the term or tenure for all legal consequences
of all official acts. Of course, if what was done during the term
b. PRIVILEGES AND SALARY. was illegal, and the President is removed or after the term
expired, then he will no longer enjoy the immunity with
Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The respect to the effects of those illegal acts. But if these refer to
salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined the natural consequences of official acts not attended by any
by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No of those qualifying circumstances or factors such as bad faith,
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the malice, grave abuse or abuse of authority, those are still
expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such covered by presidential immunity so that the president will not
increase was approved. They shall not receive during their hesitate to act while in office to perform what is incumbent
tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other upon him being the president or commander-in-chief of the
source. Philippines.
The President’s salary cannot be increased nor decreased

during his term. So that is protection from the acts of 2. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Congress. They will enact a bill decreasing the salary in order
to hold the President hostage or grant a reward for favor to The other executive privilege is literally the CONCEPT OF
Congress by increasing his salary. To insulate him from that, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE which refers to the right of the
there is a prohibition on both. president to refuse public disclosure of certain matters which
fall under the coverage of the executive privilege. In the
discussions on all the cases on executive privilege where the
THE OTHER PRIVILEGES OF THE PRESIDENT Supreme Court started with the case of:
The Constitution provides for an official residence. When US vs NIXON

President Duterte assumed office, this happened when he was
proclaimed or even then when it was already certain that he It is admitted that it is not provided for in the Constitution
would win, there were public disclosures that he would reside expressly. But because of the fact that the President has the
in Davao City; that he would not sleep in Malacañang because power to ensure that the laws are fully implemented, it is
of ghosts. supposed to be, on that account that when the President is
These papers showed that he also made a public to decide on a matter or of course on the action to be taken,
announcement that he will be staying in Davao City for at least there are certain matters which the President may not be
compelled by legislative inquiry or judicial proceedings or any
41 | P a g e
form of investigation to make any public disclosures of those president, its officials, or employees from investigations for
fact. The Supreme Court divided however this concept of possible criminal wrongdoing. Stated differently, if question is
executive privilege and we made mention of this already. asked, can the president and his men during a discussion to
come up with the national policy, say on drugs, discuss the
possibility of committing a wrongdoing? “Pamatyon nato silang
tanan.”
3. PRESIDENTIAL COMMNICATIONS PRIVILEGE and
What do you think? Is that feasible? How do we make the
4. DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE extrajudicial killings valid? And so they will discuss. They will
The CONCEPT OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS try to be frank about it. What do you think? What is your
PRIVILEGE and the other one, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS suggestion? And they will come up with a policy.
PRIVILEGE where the Supreme Court said only the presidential The executive issuance after that obviously must have to be
communications privilege is covered. It does not cover the made public, but as to how that policy was eventually decided,
second type because these are general advisory opinion for all that may be covered by executive privilege. Even then, the
government offices, officers in coming up with a decision. So question is, if they did in fact discuss a commission of a crime
only those which technically are part of the presidential or a wrongdoing and that may be covered by the executive
communications privilege are covered by that. privilege claiming for, can they be accountable and compelled
And another discussion with respect to the privilege enjoyed to make public disclosure?
by the President being the sole representative in foreign They analysed it based on the US case of US vs. Nixon to
relations as the head of the State. The case of: direct the commission of a crime is never covered by the
privilege. But of course, you can see our president ordering the
AKBAYAN vs AQUINO commission of a crime although the discussion, it may have
come across that the commission of an illegal act will be
Involving the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership necessary to ensure that this country, my country, yours, will
Agreement (JPEPA) where the Supreme Court made mention never be destroyed by reason of drugs. So that is your
the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreements. The executive privilege.
petitioners would have wanted that the President would make
public the updates of the negotiations leading to the
conclusion of the JPEPA. The petitioner contends that it is part c. PROHIBITIONS
of our right to information that we should be made aware of
what the Philippine counterpart, the Executive that is, is Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of
agreeing with Japan with respect to this agreement. the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
The Supreme Court clarified that with respect to the final text unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any
as approved, that cannot be kept private. But because it is still other office or employment during their tenure. They shall
undergoing negotiations, the Supreme Court said that not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any
diplomatic negotiations enjoy a privilege character likened to other profession, participate in any business, or be
the presidential communications privilege or deliberative financially interested in any contract with, or in any
process where it cannot be made public while the negotiations franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or
are on-going. The Supreme Court likened it to the executive any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
privilege of the President for saying which requires a prompt including government-owned or controlled corporations or
discussion of the matters where to make it public at this point their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest
may hamper the parties from coming out with agreements or in the conduct of their office.
provisions to an agreement because there will be no pre and The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
full discussion of options “compromises” that each party will the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his
have to take ___ agreement such as this. tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
And so, until the full text has been agreed upon, the executive Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
cannot be compelled to make public what the updates of the Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus
negotiations are. or offices, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
The Supreme Court, by the way, made mention in this case
that the claim of executive privilege is not automatic citing the The prohibitions under the Constitution are listed down. For
case of Senate vs. Ermita. the executive family, there should be no other office or
employment unless ex-officio. No practice of profession,
It must have to be shown, just like in the case of: business, or financial interest with the government, GOCCs,
agencies, instrumentalities, or subsidiaries.
NERI vs SENATE COMMITTEE
With respect to the power of appointment, the President shall
not appoint the spouse or any relative within the fourth civil
What the fact ought to be compelled for disclosure are in order degree to the Constitutional Commission, to the Ombudsman,
for the court to determine whether it is covered by the Secretaries, Undersecretaries, Chairpersons, or Heads of the
executive privilege. Meaning, a simple claim of executive bureaus, offices including GOCCs.
privilege does not prevent the disclosure of that. It must have
to be shown that in fact it is part of the privilege. Same thing When Erap became the president, the question was which
with the negotiations privilege where the Supreme Court said spouse is covered by the prohibition on the President’s power
that a simple claim of that will not make it covered by the to appoint? Because before then, our Presidents have
diplomatic negotiations privilege. It must be shown that it is remained publicly married to one individual. But when Erap
really part of the diplomatic negotiations and to divulge this is was elected as President, it is publicly known that he is legally
prejudicial to public or national interest. married to one, and would have one or several other women.
Is that common law spouse covered by the prohibition?
The Supreme Court also made mention that the privilege By the way, there are several cases here in your outline with
afforded even under presidential communications is not respect to Section 13 of Article VII. Section 13 of Article VII
absolute. It clarified that the executive cannot shield the must have to be literally interpreted which allows members of
42 | P a g e
the executive family to hold other positions in the government members of Congress. So the Supreme Court had the
if literally allowed in the Constitution. Covered in that literally occasion to restate, (itong si Mr. Funa, marami talagang
allowed in the Constitution would be your Vice-President being kaso ito kasi ito walang magawa kaya merong mga Funa
a member of the cabinet or acting as President, the secretary vs Agra, Funa vs Duque, Funa vs MECO. You know when
of Justice as ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council. you are a lawyer and you do not have anything else to
And third in your outline are those which are considered as ex- do, perhaps you could file a petition to the Supreme Court
officio positions. hoping your case will end up in there not as an accused in
a criminal case, but at least as a petitioner for public
The said section made mention of specific positions. Of course,
interest right violation.)
the President, the Vice-President, members of the Cabinet. So,
cabinet secretaries, their deputies or assistants. So,
undersecretary or assistant secretary of the secretary of a The Supreme Court said ex-officio means and there are four
department. It does not cover positions with the rank of considerations: (He mentioned only 3)
undersecretary or rank of assistant secretary if they are not 1. It is from office or by virtue of office.
undersecretaries or assistant secretaries of cabinet secretaries.
That is the ruling in: 2. The act is done in the official character without any
other appointment or authority.
PUBLIC INTEREST vs ELMA 3. The ex-officio position is one in which the member by
virtue of his title to a certain office takes that office
The position of chairperson of the PCGG and chief without further warrants and most especially, there is
presidential legal counsel because that may be of cabinet no additional remuneration.
rank, but it is not a department under your EO 292 or
When Chairperson Duque took this ex-officio position in the
Administrative Code of 1987.
Board of those GOCCs, the Supreme Court noted that he was
receiving remuneration. How much is every meeting ba?
So, Salvador Panelo may be of cabinet rank, but he is not P18,000. I don’t know if you, of course, during the elections,
actually covered by Section 13. So he can be the chief one of the friends of Mar Roxas, Antonino who is supposed to
presidential legal counsel, presidential jester, no problem. No be sitting in the SSS and he was said to have received so many
prohibition because this must literally refer to those millions having been the member of the Board. Members of
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries as provided for in the Board do not have salaries. They only have per diems for
your Administrative Code. Mayor Evasco?, what is his position every board meeting attended. Unsaon pag abot ug 10 Million
in this administration? Secretary to the Cabinet. There is no ang board meeting? You meet 24 hours a day, 365 days a
such department in government. So he is of cabinet rank, but year, so probably that will reach to more than 10 Million.
he is not covered technically by Section 13. Mr. Bong Go, he is
Undersecretary. He is the presidential management staff, but So, did he take the additional positions as ex-officio by reason
he does not have a specific department. Of course, they are of of his being the Chair of the Civil Service? And reportedly
cabinet rank or rank of undersecretary or assistant secretary, because he was receiving additional remunerations or per diem
they may have the same salary, but they are not covered for every board meeting attended, then that would not be ex-
technically by Section 13. officio. The Supreme Court also noticed and said in the
decision that for the Civil Service Commission Chairperson to
In your case of: takes seats in the Board of GOCCs which is under the control
of the President, destroys, if not, violates the independence of
FUNA vs AGRA the Commission. Because his actions now as Chairperson may
be affected because he sits in the board where the president
Because this involves the appointment as acting Secretary exercises control over the GOCCs. That being said, his
of Justice and acting Solicitor General, the Supreme Court appointments violate therefore Section 13 of Article VII. So
said that this is covered by Section 13 because Secretary that is your Funa vs. Duque, 2014.
of Justice is a Cabinet position and to hold another
position as Solicitor General is covered by that prohibition Compare prohibition to the other officials with respect to
because that is not literally allowed in the Constitution. Congress, the other prohibitions remain the same. With
respect to the exercise of profession: Congress, there is no
prohibition totally except for lawyers making personal
There is also a mention of ex-officio. What is meant by ex-
appearance before the courts, quasi-judicial bodies, including
officio? By the way, there is another case, the case of:
electoral tribunals. For members of the executive body: There
is absolutely no private practice allowed for any kind of
FUNA vs DUQUE profession. The reason why for those newly appointed from
November 25, 2014 Davao, you know, there are so many people in Davao
appointed, who have been appointed already. Their first
Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission Fransisco question is can they leave ____. You know you are appointed,
Duque III, aside from being the Chair of Civil Service, he you are here with your family, you are in private practice for
was also a member of the board, either director or example you are a lawyer, even if you are in practice, your
trustees in ex-officio capacity with the GSIS, PhilHealth, income is largely dependent in your industry. If you just leave,
Employees Compensation Commission and Home probably, you will not have income. If you work with your
Development Mutual Fund or commonly known as Pag- industry, then you may have a lot more, there are no limits so
ibig. Magkakabahay ka dahil sa Pag-ibig for P200 pesos a to speak. It is legalized robbery or hold-up. Hold-uppers will
month after 24 months, you can now get a loan from cover their faces, lawyers will not.
Pag-ibig, so magkakabahay ka. You know they can bill the client without batting an eyelash
The question is the taking of Chairperson Duque of such this much and their client, mura siyag gidunggab. But the
positions as board director of trustees in ex-officio lawyer will not feel that. So first question, if I take the position,
capacity allowed because it has always been said that how much will I earn? Remember, when you are here in your
aside from those literally mentioned in the Constitution as comfort zone, you may have a house here already, fully paid
covered by the prohibition under Section 13, generally or if not fully paid, under amortization or mortgage, If you go
accepted as exception is ex-officio positions even for to Manila, there is no free house there, there is no free food,
so you are as if you are living in the dormitory taking your
43 | P a g e
college education and spending for two households. So that is powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President
a consideration, unless you are going to stay. as Acting President.
The bigger ones are with the GOCCs because they are paid Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
handsomely. Their standardization of compensation is different transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker
from the government standardization. It is dependent on how of the House of Representatives their written declaration
much the GOCC is earning. So, a lot are racing towards these that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
GOCCs. If you sit in the board of all GOCCs because you are duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately
appointed or nominated by the government. In per diems, assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting
probably you can live with two families if your time allows you. President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
d. SUCCESSION
Representatives his written declaration that no inability
There is nothing much in succession. The Rules are as follows: exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his
office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of
(1) At the beginning of term the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect their written declaration that the President is unable to
shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
shall act as President until the President-elect shall have convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
qualified. accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last
President-elect shall act as President until a President shall written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days
have been chosen and qualified. after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of
President. his office.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the
chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have public shall be informed of the state of his health. The
died or become permanently disabled, the President of the members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
of Representatives, shall act as President until a President of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the
or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified. President during such illness
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which
one who is to act as President shall be selected until a From Sir:
President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of 1. If the President is not chosen: the Vice-President
death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials shall act until the President is chosen.
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
2. If the President fails to qualify even if chosen:
the Vice-President shall act until the President
qualifies.
(2) During Term
3. If at the beginning of the term, the President
dies or becomes permanently disabled: the Vice-
Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal
President becomes the President.
from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-
President shall become the President to serve the unexpired 4. If during the term, the President dies, he
term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from becomes permanently disabled, has been
office, or resignation of both the President and Vice- removed or has resigned: the Vice-President
President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his becomes the President.
inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall
then act as President until the President or Vice-President PERMANENT DISABILITY
shall have been elected and qualified. Perhaps the only discussion here is on permanent disability.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as What is this permanent disability?
President in case of death, permanent disability, or If you remember the case of Estrada, when he wrote a letter
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the which was used by the Supreme Court in its decision that he
President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and was leaving Malacañang, the Supreme Court took it as
qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers resignation.
and disqualifications as the Acting President.
Actually, what he was trying to say is that he wanted to go
home to San Juan to be with Guia Gomez because of all the
trouble of EDSA Dos, he just wants a new environment. In
(3) In case of temporary Disability Tagalog, aalis na muna ako ng Malacañang. Gienglish man
niya, so I will leave Malacañang, I am leaving Malacañang. It
Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the was taken to mean as a resignation or voluntary renunciation.
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Because he also furnished the Senate President and the
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to Speaker of the House of those letters, giEnglish man gud. Unta
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he giTagalog na lang toh niya. Aalis muna ako, sandali lang. Pero
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such giEnglish man, I am leaving. And so he took that boat from the
44 | P a g e
side of Malacañang to the Pasig River and went home to San They shall meet if they are not in session without need of call
Juan. and then thereafter resolve the issue. In the meantime, the
President shall continue to hold office. If there is temporary
So what is that permanent disability? Because if we have read
incapacity on the part of the Vice-President, during his term,
the decision, there was a discussion there by one of the
the Constitution does not provide for it because President any
Justices saying could it also be institutional disability?
way is not going to do anything.
Meaning, if all institutions of the government, especially the
By the way, what is Leni Robredo doing nowadays? She is not
military and the police have already withdrawn their support to
even part of the news anymore. She has a position pala. Her
the President, does that make you disable or disabled already
position is Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
and is the disability permanent or is it only referring to physical
Council, but HUDCC had been placed under the control or
disability or mental disability? Mental yata hindi kasi nagtapos
supervision of the Secretary to the Cabinet. Before it was on its
si Aquino eh, hindi siya naalis. Physical? That was a question
own. Now, the Vice-President is reporting to the Secretary of
because of our propensity on People Power when we do not
the Cabinets with respect to her office.
like the President, we go to the streets kunohay so that there
will be no classes, there will be no work, street party, happy
happy, until the President leaves the office. So, is institutional
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
disability by reason of withdrawal of support of the institutions
in the society, would that constitute permanent disability? If both the offices of the President and the Vice President are
vacant during the term, Congress will convene without need a
need of call if not in session, pass a bill to call for a special
Now if there is no President and Vice-President at the election. It shall be certified as urgent and will become a law
beginning of the term: even without the President’s signature. Of course, because
there is no President. But the acting President will have to sign
 it will be the Senate President or the Speaker of the
it into note. It is certified as funded even if it is a special
House, in case of incapacity or refusal of the Senate
allocation or appropriation bill because of the need to conduct
President to be acting as president.
a special election. If the vacancy occurs within 18 months from
If it is at the beginning: the next regular elections, there shall be no special elections.
The Constitution says that there shall be a determination by By the way, in today’s papers, you might have read that
Congress on the manner on who shall act as President if both Representative Mark Villar already resigned from Congress and
the Senate President and the Speaker are unable to act as took his oath last August 1 as the Secretary of the DPWH, so it
President. has become vacant. Will there be a special election?
If the vacancy in both offices occurs during the term If Congress so desires, it can call for a special election because
and both the Senate President and the Speaker of the it is outside of the 12-month period. However, the Speaker has
House are unable or unwilling: already said publicly that most likely there will be no special
elections because it will be very, very expensive.
The Constitution requires that there must be a determination
of who shall act as President. Q: And then there is a proposal to let a Party List
Representative be designated as the caretaker of that
The difference in the phraseology is explained by the need or legislative district in Las Piñas, the question, is that allowed?
immediate need to fill in the position as Acting President if the Can a party list representative or can a representative of
vacancies in both and the unwillingness or inability of both Congress, either Party List or a District Representative be
occur at the beginning, there is still time to choose. designated as caretaker of another legislative district which is
But if it is during the term, because of the need to fill in the vacant? Assuming the answer is Yes, the question is what
vacancy immediately because both are vacant and both would be the powers of that caretaker with respect to that
positions acting as President or to act as President are unable district which he is taking care of? Meaning, can he vote twice?
or unwilling, there must be a determination as to who shall act The gentleman from the First District of Naga is hereby
as president in the meantime. recognized, what is your vote? And then the caretaker of the
First District of Las Piñas is hereby recognized, what is your
In the political history of the Philippines, during the Estrada vote? Siya lang gihapon. Is that part of his discretions or
impeachment and during the Oakwood Mutiny, as to who shall powers as caretaker?
act as President, because they did not want members of the
Congress to do so, the usual recourse is the Chief Justice of Secondly, if there is a P250,000 monthly budget for an officer
the Supreme Court. But of course, it has not yet happened, but for a member of the Congress for operating expense, will that
he is the most logical choice after the Senate President and the caretaker also get the P250,000 for that office of the First
Speaker of the House. District of Las Piñas? Hayahay kaayo? If there are 6 employees
in the district representative office, all paid for by Congress or
If no Vice-President during the term: actually, our money as taxpayers theoretically because some
There is no need for an election. The President shall choose people do not pay taxes anyway, is that caretaker also allowed
from among the members of the Congress and that choice to hire his own employees? You know they call it the political
shall be confirmed by both Houses of the Congress confirming officer, chief political officer, chief of staff, political officer.
such. Political officer 1 driver na gud nah gud. Pero they put a term
para maayo ang position ba, Political Officer 1, official task is
Temporary vacancy in the Office of the President driver or bodyguard. At least there is a politically correct
because there is temporary physical incapacity: designation or position. Any questions so far? So those are the
rules on succession.
The Vice-President shall act as President.
If it is contested: Meaning, the President does not accept
the declaration of the majority of the Members of the Cabinet (e) REMOVAL
that he is temporarily physically unable, the contested
declaration by the Members of the Cabinet shall be resolved by Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members
Congress. of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
45 | P a g e
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable When the power refers to the power to implement,
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and administer, and execute the laws, that would be the total
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All range of executive power even if the Constitution does not
other public officers and employees may be removed from provide in express terms what the President can or cannot
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. do because he has the power to make sure that all these
laws are implemented. Under the concept of residual
Section 3.
powers, the President can do that unless it is limited or
1. The House of Representatives shall have the prohibited by the Constitution.
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment. If you remember that old case of
2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed
by any Member of the House of Representatives or DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs SENATE
by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by
any Member thereof, which shall be included in the The main question there was on the issuance of the
Order of Business within ten session days, and President to postpone the elections in the ARMM. The main
referred to the proper Committee within three question was can the President elect do that because the
session days thereafter. The Committee, after law provides for the conduct of the elections? But the
hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, Supreme Court noticed that there is congressional
shall submit its report to the House within sixty allowance at least with the previous elections on
session days from such referral, together with the synchronization. So the intent is to synchronize the
corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be elections eventually. And so when the President directed
calendared for consideration by the House within the postponement of the ARMM elections to be
ten session days from receipt thereof. synchronized in the regular elections, that is part of his
power to implement and administer the laws consistent with
3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of what has not been prohibited by the Constitution.
the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles of
Impeachment of the Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall August 9 (EMurcia)
be recorded.
1. The President
4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of
(f) Powers and Functions of the President
impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the
Members of the House, the same shall constitute Xxx
the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the
Senate shall forthwith proceed. (2) Control of Executive Department
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated ART. VII, SEC. 17

against the same official more than once within a
period of one year. The president shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and laws be faithfully executed.
decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for
that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or As compared with or distinguished from supervision, the power
affirmation. When the President of the Philippines of control of the executive of the president directly over the
is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court cabinet secretaries and indirectly over all officials and
shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be personnel of the executive department refers to the power of
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the president to revise, reverse, modify, review or affirm the
all the Members of the Senate. actions of the subordinate officials. He can direct the doing or
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not undoing of an act and can even substitute his own to that of
extend further than removal from office and the subordinate.
disqualification to hold any office under the Whereas the power of supervision under the Constitution
Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted simply entitles the president to oversee that the subordinate
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to officers are performing their tasks in accordance with law. He
prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to does not have the power to substitute his own judgment to
law. that of the decisions of the subordinate officer.
8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on
impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose
of this section. DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY.
The discussion with respect to control is in relation to the
There is nothing much there except our discussion already on. allowable delegation of executive powers under the
Let us start with EXECUTIVE POWER. We still have 5 QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE. We all
minutes. understand that because of the many functions of the
president, the president cannot be expected to do everything
ARTICLE VII, by himself in what is included under the executive power and
as understood under the concept of residual powers. And so
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the he is allowed to let members of his cabinet to perform all the
President of the Philippines. tasks that the president should do unless he is required by the
Constitution or by law to personally do and perform the act.
MARCOS vs MANGLAPUS
The Qualified Political Agency Doctrine considers the act or
acts of the subordinate as that of the president until changed
or reprobated by the president. And there may be situations
46 | P a g e
where the president may even delegate totally what the considered actions of the president until reprobated or changed
cabinet member can do or perform for him. For this reason by the president. Even if there is a law requiring prior
perhaps, that’s why the Narco(?) list of President Duterte recommendation, as an alter ego of the resident, the secretary
turned out not to be accurate because he allowed his acts as if he were the president.
subordinate officer to prepare the list and there was no review,
revision or modification of the list because it still included some Q: What actions or acts must the president perform
who have long been dead. If only control power has properly personally which cannot be delegated?
been exercised, it could not have been that. But at least, if he
shows that really the task of the president is so numerous and In the cases you have read, you have come across these:
so there is a need for him to delegate it but at the same time, 1. Declaration of Martial law
he has to exercise control over him.
2. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
ANGELES VS. GAITE 646 SCRA 309 (2011) corpus
3. Pardoning powers – it is a private act of the
FACTS: The case of ANGELES VS. GAITE in your outline president. It cannot be exercised by anybody.
speaks of an old memorandum circular no. 58 of the DOJ that
unless the finding of probable cause of a case appealed to the 4. When the president should enter into an executive
DOJ involves the penalty of reclusion perpetua of higher, the agreement. It cannot be delegated through a cabinet
decisions of the DOJ on review is final and no longer secretary even if it is the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
appealable to the office of the President. (Neri vs. Senate, 2008)
ISSUE: This was questioned because it violates doctrine of 5. Those of similar import or importance.
qualified political agency that even if the decision of the You have seen cases before at the time of President Cory
secretary has been made, it must still be subject to review by Aquino that even bills can be signed into law by the executive
the president. secretary by authority of the president. It is not necessary that
HELD: The SC said, it does not follow in all cases. When there the president must at all times sign bills enrolled and
is a determination already that only cases involving penalties presented to the president for action to be signed by him or
of reclusion perpetua or higher can be appealed to the acted by him personally. It can be delegated.
president, all the rest has been fully delegated to the DOJ. The (3) General Supervision of Local Governments and
findings of the DOJ is considered as the findings of the Autonomous Regions
president and therefore need not be appealed even under the
exhaustion of administrative remedies or under the Doctrine of Now with respect to supervision, the usual discussion here is in
Qualified Political Agency. relation to the power of the president with respect to Local
Government Units (LGUs) because of the concept of
MANALANG VS. TIDCORP 692 SCRA 359 (2013) autonomy.
FACTS: This case of MANALANG VS. TIDCORP involves the VILLAFUERTE VS. ROBREDO 744 SCRA 534 (2014)
actions of the Board of Directors of TIDCORP. TIDCOROP is a
GOCC established and created by a special law which five of the FACTS: Your case in point here is the case of VILLAFUERTE
nine members of the Board are members of the Cabinet. They VS. ROBREDO where this was an issue involving the
sit there because the law designates them to sit there, not memorandum order of then secretary of DILG Jessie Robredo
because they are appointed by the president to sit in the board. for the public posting and also in the website of local budget
and finances and bids and public offerings. This is in line with
ISSUE: What was sought to be reviewed here is the decision of the local government code provision that 20% of the E-VAT
the board considering that 5 of the 9 members are members of must be spent for development projects utilized by social
the cabinet claiming that under the doctrine of qualified political economic development and environmental management. It
agency, the actions of the members of the cabinet can be was found out by Robredo that the 20% E-VAT was not used
reviewed by the president. for these purposes. So to ensure full compliance with the local
HELD: SC said, when these members of the cabinet sit in the government code provision that such 20% of the EVAT is
board by appointment of law and not by the president, they actually utilized for these purposes, there was a requirement
discharge functions as members of the board and not as alter to post that in public places in the LGU as well as in the
egos of the president. And so their decisions as members of the website of each LGU. Failure to comply with the memorandum
board of TIDCORP cannot be reviewed by the president. issuances of Robredo will merit sanctions from the national
government.
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL VS. TRB 751 SCRA 271 (2015) ISSUE: So the question was: Are local government officials
subject to the power of discipline by the national government
FACTS: This case of HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL VS. TRB, considering that there is an express grant of autonomy to local
where toll regulatory board created by law for toll operations. governments.
And TRB entered into a contract with Phil. National Construction
HELD: The SC discussed what “autonomy” is. It means a
Corp for the toll operation of the express way. What has been
more responsive and accountable local government instituted
subject of a controversy here is the approval of the DOTC
to a system of decentralization. There are two types of
secretary of the supplement of the amended toll operation
decentralization:
agreement because under the law, there is supposed to be, as
claimed by petitioner, the approval of DOTC must have to be 1. Decentralization of administration; and
with a prior approval or recommendation of the president. The
2. Decentralization of power
Secretary here signed the agreement or entered into the
contract even without prior recommendation without the But SC said despite that, there is still accountability on the part
president and, therefore, that should not have been considered of LGUs and its officials to national government. Local
as valid. autonomy does not create a sovereign state within the
sovereign country of the Philippines. They are still
HELD: SC said, there is no need for the president to give
accountable. And when the constitution provides that the
recommendation because the actions of the secretary are
president shall have the power of supervision over them, it
47 | P a g e
allows the president to ensure that they have faithfully Authority

implemented the laws and if they have not done so, they can
HELD: Indeed, the power of choice is the heart of the power
be properly investigated and can be disciplined accordingly as
to appoint. Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of
the law will require.
whom to appoint; it is not a ministerial act of issuing
Supervision is not incompatible with discipline. The power to appointment papers to the appointee. In other words, the
discipline and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed must choice of the appointee is a fundamental component of the
be construed to authorize the president to order an appointing power.
investigation of the act or conduct of local officials when in his
Hence, when Congress clothes the President with the power to
opinion the good of the public service so requires.
appoint an officer, it (Congress) cannot at the same time limit
The president’s power of supervision is not antithetical to the choice of the President to only one candidate. Once the
investigation and imposition of sanctions. power of appointment is conferred on the President, such
conferment necessarily carries the discretion of whom to
So while the president cannot substitute his own judgment or appoint. Even on the pretext of prescribing the qualifications
decisions as that what the local government units or officials of the officer, Congress may not abuse such power as to divest
have done, the president can actually investigate and sanction the appointing authority, directly or indirectly, of his discretion
them accordingly as the law or laws require if there is no to pick his own choice. Consequently, when the qualifications
faithful compliance of the law as required as in this case in prescribed by Congress can only be met by one individual,
relation to the local government code. such enactment effectively eliminates the discretion of the
appointing power to choose and constitutes an irregular
(4) Power of Appointment restriction on the power of appointment.
The power of the president to appoint is purely executive. It In the case at bar, while Congress willed that the subject posts
means, there is nothing legislative or judicial about it even if it be filled with a presidential appointee for the first year of its
refers to the power of the senate or house of representative operations from the effectivity of R.A. 7227,
officers to appoint committee chairs, to appoint members of the proviso nevertheless limits the appointing authority to only
the committee. For Supreme Court to appoint all other officials one eligible, i.e., the incumbent Mayor of Olongapo City. Since
of the judiciary starting with clerks of court down to the last only one can qualify for the posts in question, the President is
employee, there is nothing judicial about it, it is executive. precluded from exercising his discretion to choose whom to
With respect to the president, it is largely discretionary. appoint. Such supposed power of appointment, sans the
Meaning, by nature, while the Constitution may provide for essential element of choice, is no power at all and goes
limitations or Congress may, by law, provide for qualifications against the very nature itself of appointment.
for a certain public office, the law cannot limit the authority of While it may be viewed that the proviso merely sets the
the president so as to destroy the so-called discretionary qualifications of the officer during the first year of operations
character or nature of appointments. of SBMA, i.e., he must be the Mayor of Olongapo City, it is
If you remember the old case of FLORES VS. DRILON. When manifestly an abuse of congressional authority to prescribe
the SBMA was created by law, there was a provision there qualifications where only one, and no other, can qualify.
which states that the terms “chairperson administrator” is the Accordingly, while the conferment of the appointing power on
mayor of Olongapo city. That provision providing for the the President is a perfectly valid legislative act,
appointing authority that the first chair shall be the mayor of the proviso limiting his choice to one is certainly an
Olongapo city, according to the SC, is unconstitutional because encroachment on his prerogative.
that unnecessarily limits the discretion of the appointing
authority whom to appoint. Again, Congress may, by law, (A) With Consent of Commission on Appointments
provide for qualifications but it must not be so restricted that
Now with respect to the president’s power of appointment,
only one person can be appointed or be qualified and,
there are several rules mentioned in your outline as listed
therefore, destroying the very discretionary nature or character
down, those with consent of the Commission of Appointments.
of what an appointing power is.
These refer to those officials listed in the first sentence of Sec.
16 of Art. VII. As you very well know, the list is exclusive. It
FLORES VS. DRILON cannot be expanded by legislation to require CA confirmation
JUNE 22, 1993 for other positions not listed in that Constitutional phrase or
line.
FACTS: The constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d), of R.A.
7227, otherwise known as the "Bases Conversion and The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Development Act of 1992," under which respondent Mayor Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City was appointed Chairman executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers
and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of
Authority (SBMA), is challenged in this original petition with colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose
prayer for prohibition, preliminary injunction and temporary appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.
restraining order "to prevent useless and unnecessary
expenditures of public funds by way of salaries and other So we have there:
operational expenses attached to the office . . . ." Paragraph
a.) Heads of the executive departments
(d) reads —
b.) Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
(d) Chairman administrator — The President shall appoint a
professional manager as administrator of the Subic Authority c.) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
with a compensation to be determined by the Board subject to or naval captain
the approval of the Secretary of Budget, who shall be the ex
In relation to this, there have been two cases, one involving
oficio chairman of the Board and who shall serve as the chief
the PNP and one involving the coast guard. And SC said that
executive officer of the Subic Authority: Provided, however,
those positions do not require CA confirmation because both
That for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of
are not part of the armed forces. The PNP is a civilian police
this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed
force. It is not included in the listing of officers of the armed
as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic
48 | P a g e
forces and so with the coast guard. The coast guard is not part Those are the regular members. Their appointments must
of the naval force of the Philippines. They are just coast have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
guards for rescue operations.
f.) Sectoral Representatives
d.) Chairpersons of the Constitutional Commissions
ART. XVIII, SEC. 7
ART. IX(B), SEC. 1(2) – CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by from a list of nominees by the respective sectors, the seats
the President with the consent of the Commission on reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section
Appointments for a term of seven years without 5 of Article V1 of this Constitution.
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall
hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and That would fall under the last phrase “appointed are vested in
another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. him in this Constitution” but as you all know, that was only
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired good until RA 7941 was enacted and made effective. So the
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be Court returns(?) under the 1987 Constitution that half of the
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. seats reserved for party lists were filled up by appointments
and, thus, those appointments must have to be confirmed by
ART. IX(C), SEC. 1(2) – COMELEC the Commission on Appointments.
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by (B) Upon Recommendation of the Judicial And Bar
the President with the consent of the Commission on Council
Appointments for a term of seven years without
The second are those which the president makes but without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall
going through the confirmation process because they are
hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and
recommended by the JBC. Your outline mentions all the
the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
members of the court from the SC down to the lowest court.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
The ombudsman and the deputies.
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. a.) Members of the SC and all other courts
ART. IX(D), SEC. 1(2) – COMMISSION ON AUDIT ART. VIII, SEC. 9

The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts
the President with the consent of the Commission on shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
Appointments for a term of seven years without nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years,
and the other Commissioner for three years, without For the lower courts, the President shall issued the
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list.
the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no
case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a b.) Ombudsman and Deputies
temporary or acting capacity.
ART. XI, SEC. 9
e.) Regular Members of the Judicial and Bar Council The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the
ART. VIII, SEC. 8(2) Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for
The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no
President for a term of four years with the consent of the confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months
Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, after they occur.
the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four
years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice (C) APPOINTMENT OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AS
for two years, and the representative of the private sector for MEMBER OF THE CABINET
one year.
ART. VII, SEC. 3
As you all know, there are seven members of the JBC. In the
case of Chavez vs. JBC, this has been discussed again that
the three are ex officio members: There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same
qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in
1. Chief Justice the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from
2. Secretary of Justice; and office in the same manner as the President.
3. A Representative of Congress. They have to choose

whether a senator or a representative. Just have one The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
representative from the legislative department. Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
The four members are the regular members:
1. Retired SC Justice
That the president can make and is exempted from the
2. Representative of the IBP confirmation process and exempted from the non(??) of
3. Representative of the private sector additional task or work prohibited under Sec. 13 of your Art.
VII
4. Representative of the academe
49 | P a g e
(D) Appointment solely by the president (E) Power to Remove by the President
ART. VII, SEC. 16 GONZALES VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 678 SCRA
614 (2012)
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers FACTS: Sometime in 2008, a formal charge5 for Grave
and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of Misconduct (robbery, grave threats, robbery extortion and
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose physical injuries) was filed before the Philippine National
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall Police-National Capital Region (PNP-NCR) against Manila
also appoint all other officers of the Government whose Police District Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) ROLANDO
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and MENDOZA, and four others.
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The The Ombudsman dismissed from service Mendoza and his
Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers fellow police officers upon recommendation of petitioner
lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the Gonzales.
heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
This resulted in the Quirino grandstand hostage drama.
The President shall have the power to make appointments
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or In the aftermath of the hostage-taking incident, a public
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only outcry against the blundering of government officials
until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until prompted the creation of the Incident Investigation and
the next adjournment of the Congress. Review Committee (IIRC), chaired by Justice Secretary Leila
de Lima and vice-chaired by Interior and Local Government
Secretary Jesus Robredo. It was tasked to determine
accountability for the incident through the conduct of public
a.) Those whose appointments are not otherwise hearings and executive sessions. However, petitioner, as well
provided by law as the Ombudsman herself, refused to participate in the IIRC
proceedings on the assertion that the Office of the
b.) Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint
Ombudsman is an independent constitutional body.
Now with respect to the CA, there are several rules to
Sifting through testimonial and documentary evidence, the
remember.
IIRC eventually identified petitioner Gonzales to be among
1. If the position requires a confirmation, the usual those in whom culpability must lie. In its Report, the IIRC
process is there will be a nomination. The president made the following findings:
simply nominates them.
Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales committed serious and
2. The nomination will be submitted to the CA for inexcusable negligence and gross violation of their own rules
confirmation. of procedure by allowing Mendoza's motion for
reconsideration to languish for more than nine (9) months
3. If acted upon favorably by the CA, then the regular without any justification, in violation of the Ombudsman
appointment must be issued. That’s when the person prescribed rules to resolve motions for reconsideration in
is deemed to be regularly appointed. administrative disciplinary cases within five (5) days from
However, the CA may opt to hold any action on the nomination submission. The inaction is gross, considering there is no
and for this reason, it is normally referred to as the nomination opposition thereto. The prolonged inaction precipitated the
or appointment having been bypassed. desperate resort to hostage-taking.
The rule on an appointment having been bypassed is that it On October 15, 2010, the Office of the President (OP)
can be bypassed for so many (??) and if the nomination is instituted a Formal Charge against petitioner Gonzales for
considered to have been rejected by the CA, the question is: Gross Neglect of Duty and/or Inefficiency in the Performance
Can the president renominate that person? Can he be of Official Duty.
appointed again? Meanwhile, the OP notified petitioner that a Preliminary
The answer is if it has just been bypassed, there is no Clarificatory Conference relative to the administrative charge
limitation as to the reappointment or renomination but if it has against him was to be conducted at the Office of the Deputy
been rejected officially by the CA, meaning not approved, the Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA) on February
president can reappoint or renominate that person for another 8, 2011. Petitioner Gonzales alleged, however, that on
cabinet position not to the position for which the CA has February 4, 2011, he heard the news that the OP had
already acted upon. announced his suspension for one year due to his delay in
the disposition of P/S Insp. Mendoza's motion for
Other matters there is, what are the limitations or the extent reconsideration. Hence, believing that the OP had already
of the power of the CA with respect to approving or prejudged his case and that any proceeding before it would
withholding approval or rejecting a nomination or simply be a charade, petitioner no longer attended the
appointment? Technically, it’s their discretion. scheduled clarificatory conference. Instead, he filed an
These positions do not technically require certain qualifications Objection to Proceedings22 on February 7, 2011. Despite
as you may have not found in your administrative code. petitioner's absence, however, the OP pushed through with
the proceedings and, on March 31, 2011, rendered the
Q: So, can the CA be questioned in approving the assailed Decision dismissing Gonzales from service.
appointment or nomination for lack of qualification?
Short of claiming themselves immune from the ordinary
A: If the law does not require for qualification, what is there means of removal, petitioners asseverate that the President
for the CA to be questioned for lack of qualification to consider has no disciplinary jurisdiction over them considering that the
the approval or non-approval as grave abuse of discretion? So Office of the Ombudsman to which they belong is clothed
largely, the power of the CA or the exercise of power to with constitutional independence and that they, as Deputy
approve or not to approve cannot be, unless there is a legal Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor therein, necessarily bear
qualification violated, questioned as having been done in grave the constitutional attributes of said office.
abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: W/N the president can remove a deputy ombudsman
50 | P a g e
and special prosecutor removal from office of a Deputy Ombudsman, or a Special

Prosecutor, for that matter. By enacting Section 8(2) of R.A.
HELD: YES. Congress passed, on November 17, 1989,
6770, Congress simply filled a gap in the law without running
Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, to shore
afoul of any provision in the Constitution or existing statutes.
up the Ombudsman's institutional strength by granting it "full
In fact, the Constitution itself, under Section 2, authorizes
administrative disciplinary power over public officials and
Congress to provide for the removal of all other public
employees," as follows:
officers, including the Deputy Ombudsman and Special
Sec. 21. Officials Subject to Disciplinary Authority; Prosecutor, who are not subject to impeachment.
Exceptions. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall have
Under the doctrine of implication, the power to appoint
disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials
carries with it the power to remove. As a general rule,
of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and
therefore, all officers appointed by the President are also
agencies, including Members of the Cabinet, local
removable by him. The exception to this is when the law
government, government-owned or controlled corporations
expressly provides otherwise - that is, when the power to
and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be
remove is expressly vested in an office or authority other
removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress,
than the appointing power. In some cases, the Constitution
and the Judiciary.(Emphasis supplied)
expressly separates the power to remove from the President's
In the exercise of such full administrative disciplinary power to appoint. Under Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987
authority, the Office of the Ombudsman was explicitly Constitution, the Members of the Supreme Court and judges
conferred the statutory power to conduct administrative of lower courts shall be appointed by the President. However,
investigations under Section 19 of the same law. Members of the Supreme Court may be removed after
impeachment proceedings initiated by Congress (Section 2,
While the Ombudsman's authority to discipline Article XI), while judges of lower courts may be removed only
administratively is extensive and covers all government by the Supreme Court by virtue of its administrative
officials, whether appointive or elective, with the exception supervision over all its personnel (Sections 6 and 11, Article
only of those officials removable by impeachment, the VIII). The Chairpersons and Commissioners of the Civil
members of congress and the judiciary, such authority is by Service Commission Section 1(2), Article IX(B), the
no means exclusive. Petitioners cannot insist that they should Commission on Elections Section 1(2), Article IX(C), and the
be solely and directly subject to the disciplinary authority of Commission on Audit Section 1(2), Article IX(D) shall likewise
the Ombudsman. For, while Section 21 declares the be appointed by the President, but they may be removed
Ombudsman's disciplinary authority over all government only by impeachment (Section 2, Article XI). As priorly stated,
officials, Section 8(2), on the other hand, grants the the Ombudsman himself shall be appointed by the President
President express power of removal over a Deputy (Section 9, Article XI) but may also be removed only by
Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. Thus: impeachment (Section 2, Article XI).
Section 8. Removal; Filling of Vacancy.- In giving the President the power to remove a Deputy
xxxx Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor, Congress simply laid
down in express terms an authority that is already implied
(2) A Deputy or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from the President's constitutional authority to appoint the
from office by the President for any of the grounds provided aforesaid officials in the Office of the Ombudsman.
for the removal of the Ombudsman, and after due process.
A Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor are not
Unquestionably, the Ombudsman is possessed of jurisdiction impeachable officers. However, by providing for their removal
to discipline his own people and mete out administrative from office on the same grounds as removal by
sanctions upon them, including the extreme penalty of impeachment, the legislature could not have intended to
dismissal from the service. However, it is equally without redefine constitutional standards of culpable violation of the
question that the President has concurrent authority with Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
respect to removal from office of the Deputy Ombudsman high crimes, as well as betrayal of public trust, and apply
and Special Prosecutor, albeit under specified conditions. them less stringently. Hence, where betrayal of public trust,
Considering the principles attending concurrence of for purposes of impeachment, was not intended to cover all
jurisdiction where the Office of the President was the first to kinds of official wrongdoing and plain errors of judgment, this
initiate a case against petitioner Gonzales, prudence should should remain true even for purposes of removing a Deputy
have prompted the Ombudsman to desist from proceeding Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor from office. Hence, the
separately against petitioner through its Internal Affairs fact that the grounds for impeachment have been made
Board, and to defer instead to the President's assumption of statutory grounds for the removal by the President of a
authority, especially when the administrative charge involved Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor cannot diminish
"demanding and soliciting a sum of money" which constitutes the seriousness of their nature nor the acuity of their scope.
either graft and corruption or bribery, both of which are Betrayal of public trust could not suddenly "overreach" to
grounds reserved for the President's exercise of his authority cover acts that are not vicious or malevolent on the same
to remove a Deputy Ombudsman. level as the other grounds for impeachment.
Section 9, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution confers upon The tragic hostage-taking incident was the result of a
the President the power to appoint the Ombudsman and his confluence of several unfortunate events including system
Deputies, viz: failure of government response. It cannot be solely attributed
Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be then to what petitioner Gonzales may have negligently failed
appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees to do for the quick, fair and complete resolution of the case,
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of or to his error of judgment in the disposition thereof. Neither
three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such should petitioner's official acts in the resolution of P/S Insp.
appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies Mendoza's case be judged based upon the resulting deaths at
shall be filled within three months after they occur. the Quirino Grandstand. The failure to immediately act upon
a party's requests for an early resolution of his case is not, by
While the removal of the Ombudsman himself is also itself, gross neglect of duty amounting to betrayal of public
expressly provided for in the Constitution, which is by trust.
impeachment under Section 244 of the same Article, there is,
however, no constitutional provision similarly dealing with the Accordingly, the OP's pronouncement of administrative
51 | P a g e
accountability against petitioner and the imposition upon him (F) Limitations on Appointing Power of the
of the corresponding penalty of dismissal must be reversed President
and set aside, as the findings of neglect of duty or
misconduct in office do not amount to a betrayal of public Art. VII, Sec. 13
trust. Hence, the President, while he may be vested with
authority, cannot order the removal of petitioner as Deputy The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet,
Ombudsman, there being no intentional wrongdoing of the and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
grave and serious kind amounting to a betrayal of public provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
trust. employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
GONZALES VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 714 SCRA
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted
611 (2014)
by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
HELD: Our discussions, particularly the Court’s expressed controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
caution against presidential interference with the avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
constitutional commissions, on one hand, and those
expressed by the framers of the 1987 Constitution, on the The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
other, in protecting the independence of the Constitutional the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his
Commissions, speak for themselves as overwhelming reasons tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
to invalidate Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 for violating the Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices, including government-owned or controlled
In more concrete terms, we rule that subjecting the Deputy corporations and their subsidiaries.
Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the President,
whose own alter egos and officials in the Executive
Art. VII, Sec. 15
Department are subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary
authority, cannot but seriously place at risk the independence Two months immediately before the next presidential elections
of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The Office of the and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President
Ombudsman, by express constitutional mandate, includes its shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments
key officials, all of them tasked to support the Ombudsman in to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will
carrying out her mandate. Unfortunately, intrusion upon the prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
constitutionally-granted independence is what Section 8(2) of
RA No. 6770 exactly did. By so doing, the law directly collided (G) Interim or Recess Appointments
not only with the independence that the Constitution
guarantees to the Office of the Ombudsman, but inevitably Art. VI, Sec. 19
with the principle of checks and balances that the creation of
an Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments
shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the
What is true for the Ombudsman must be equally and House of Representatives shall have been organized with the
necessarily true for her Deputies who act as agents of the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on
Ombudsman in the performance of their duties. The Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session,
Ombudsman can hardly be expected to place her complete at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to
trust in her subordinate officials who are not as independent discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred
as she is, if only because they are subject to pressures and upon it.
controls external to her Office. This need for complete trust is
true in an ideal setting and truer still in a young democracy
Art. VII, Sec. 16(2)
like the Philippines where graft and corruption is still a major
problem for the government. For these reasons, Section 8(2) The President shall have the power to make appointments
of RA No. 6770 (providing that the President may remove a during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or
Deputy Ombudsman) should be declared void. compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the
The Executive power to remove and discipline key officials of
next adjournment of the Congress.
the Office of the Ombudsman, or to exercise any power over
them, would result in an absurd situation wherein the Office
of the Ombudsman is given the duty to adjudicate on the Still with appointments. Ad interim and Regular appointments.
integrity and competence of the very persons who can Q: What is an ad interim appointment?
remove or suspend its members. Equally relevant is the
impression that would be given to the public if the rule were A: Technically, an ad interim appointment refers to an
otherwise. A complainant with a grievance against a high- appointment requiring CA confirmation but has been made
ranking official of the Executive, who appears to enjoy the when Congress is NOT in session. It is an ad interim because
President’s favor, would be discouraged from approaching the CA cannot act on it and CA is only functioning when Congress
Ombudsman with his complaint; the complainant’s impression is in session. That ad interim appointment is valid until:
(even if misplaced), that the Ombudsman would be a. Acted upon by the CA; or
susceptible to political pressure, cannot be avoided. To be
sure, such an impression would erode the constitutional b. When congress after reconvening has adjourned
intent of creating an Office of the Ombudsman as champion again.
of the people against corruption and bureaucracy.
So the president, if it has been bypassed can just make a
However, by another vote of 8-7, the Court resolved to reappointment or renomination for that.
maintain the validity of Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 insofar
Regular Appointment refers to, technically, any appointment
as Sulit is concerned. The Court did not consider the Office of
not requiring CA confirmation. Meaning, even if congress was
the Special Prosecutor to be constitutionally within the Office
not in session, the CA is not functioning but the appointment
of the Ombudsman and is, hence, not entitled to the
does not require CA confirmation, then that is referred to as a
independence the latter enjoys under the Constitution.
52 | P a g e
regular appointment if that term is to be distinguished from ad appointing 11 justices in the SC in his 6 year term by the time
interim. he leaves in 2022.
Then you have AD INTERIM AND ACTING OR TEMPORARY So in JBC, SC said that the judiciary is not covered.
APPOINTMENT. How is one distinguished from another?
If you remember the case of PIMENTEL VS. ERIMITA, there
Power of Removal (C.F. Heading E)
was an issue on whether or not the president can extend or
make an acting or temporary appointment for a position Two things are always discussed here. One, with respect to
requiring CA confirmation? members of the cabinet, can the president exercise power of
removal or power to remove members of the cabinet? Of
The contention of Pimentel was that this was done to avoid
course the answer is YES but what is the basis of that power?
submission of the acting or temporary appointment to the CA
Can you find in any Civil Service Law provisions or in the
for its action because if it’s an appointment requiring
Admin Code?
confirmation, the president has no choice but to submit it to
CA. But if it’s merely acting or temporary capacity, the Office These are non-career officers. They can be removed by the
of the President argues that this is not to be submitted to the president not based on any law but based on the power of
CA and, therefore, CA could not act on it because it is not yet appointment because they are appointed based on trust and
“the regular appointment.” Can this be done by the president? confidence, they can also be removed based on lack of trust
and confidence. But with respect to other officers lower in rank
SC said YES. When there is a vacancy in any of the cabinet
than heads of department, they are subject to civil service
positions or any of the positions requiring CA confirmation
rules and regulations. So we have distinctions between career
particularly the members of the cabinet, the president is not
and non-career officers. All the ranks of undersecretary down
compelled immediately to fill up the vacancy with a “regular
are subject to removal except if they are career officers. You
appointment.” In the meantime the president is still looking for
must have heard of the CESO (Career Executive Service
a suitable replacement for one who he thinks would perform
Officers). CESO holders cannot be removed just because there
the task properly, he is not prevented from extending a
is a change of administration. Those without, they shall leave
temporary or acting appointment in the meantime for as long
because the president said so.
as, according to the SC, it is not used to avoid CA
confirmation. Meaning, it is not done in bad faith. That should This case of Gonzales vs. Office of the president, if you have
be allowable because unless there is a showing of grave abuse read the 2012 ruling, this has been reversed in 2014 in a
of discretion, that the reason why only acting or temporary motion for reconsideration, this involves the issue: Can deputy
appointment is extended is to avoid the action of the CA, such ombudsman and special prosecutors be removed by the
grant or act of extending temporary appointment shall be president because under the Ombudsman law, they are
allowable and is not considered unconstitutional. supposed to be subject to the power of removal by the
president for the same grounds as that of impeachable
Limitations on Appointing Power of the President
officers.
(Kindly refer to heading F. Dili man gud in order ang pag
discuss ni sir ) We made mention when we discussed impeachment that this
case defined “betrayal of public trust” at least characterized it
Still with respect to appointments, limitations, we have your
as what constitutes betrayal of public trust. We said, treason,
midnight appointments two months before the elections after
bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation, betrayal of
the end of the term except temporary appointments in
public trust and other high crimes have not yet been defined
executive positions when continued vacancy would prejudice
but the case of Gonzales at least characterized what betrayal
public service of public safety, the president may extend such
of public trust should be.
temporary appointments but only in the executive branch.
Two things, SC said, if it were to be the grounds used, it
In the old case of In Re Valenzuela which was reversed in
should be the in the same characterization as that of the
the case of De Castro vs. JBC, while in Valenzuela, it also
impeachment of impeachable officers. But with respect to the
covers the judiciary, in De Castro vs. JBC, the midnight
power of the president to remove them, the deputy
appointment ban does not apply to the judiciary. They made
ombudsman, according to the SC in its motion for
discussions with respect to the vacancies in the SC, specifically,
reconsideration cannot be removed by the president. They can
because the Constitution mandates that the vacancy shall be
be removed by the Ombudsman him/herself. The reason for
filled up within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
that is to maintain the independence of the Ombudsman. The
That makes it mandatory. So if that 90 day period falls within
Ombudsman is independent that’s why he/she is an
the prohibition on midnight appointments, if it covers the
impeachable officer. If his/her deputies can be removed by
judiciary, that would not violate the constitutional prohibition
another office then his/her deputies would not be expected to
on midnight appointment.
act with the required or ideal independence for the fear that
The disposition in Valenzuela that appointments to the they will be removed by the president.
judiciary within the prohibited period suffers from the same
Remember that all officials except the judiciary generally are
evil sought to be avoided in allowing or with respect to
under the powers of the Ombudsman for investigation or
midnight appointment. What’s the evil sought to be avoided?
prosecution for any malfeasance, nonfeasance and
The outgoing appointing authority will leave in the government
misfeasance. So if the deputies of the president can be
people who probably will be helpful to him even if he is no
subjected to the investigatory powers of the Ombudsman, by
longer there. People who would continue with his “exercise of
the deputies specifically, the question is: Could the deputies
power.” In the Valenzuela ruling, the SC mentioned in saying
act with independence if they are subject to removal by the
that it covers the judiciary is that, appointments in the
president whose deputies are being investigated? SC said, that
judiciary may have an effect on the elections even for the
would destroy the independence of the Ombudsman. So the
choice of the president.
deputies are subject to the disciplinary power of the
But as can be seen, even if the outgoing president will be Ombudsman himself/herself but because of the difference in
allowed to appoint within the 90 day period, can that possibly the work and functions of the special prosecutor, the latter
help the outgoing authority? Look at PNOY. How many remains to be under the power of the president. While the
members of the SC has he appointed? Look at GMA? Well she special prosecutor is part of the office of the Ombudsman, the
really has enjoyed the benefits. By the way, Duterte will be special prosecutor does not enjoy the same independence as
53 | P a g e
that of the deputies of the ombudsman considering that they ISSUE: In 2013, he ran for mayor in Manila and so his
have different task. qualification was put in issue because petitioner contends that
he is not pardoned because the pardon did not allow him to
(H) Temporary Designations
run because one of the clauses said “he has publicly
committed to no longer seek any elective position or office.”
Admin Code of 1987, Bk III, Sec. 17
HELD: Two things, SC said: One, the power of the president
Power to Issue Temporary Designation. - to grant pardon cannot be limited by congress by mere
(1) The President may temporarily designate an officer already legislation unless it has something to do with the constitutional
in the government service or any other competent person to limitations. The SC said, it’s called the DOCTRINE OF NON-
perform the functions of an office in the executive branch, DIMINUTION OR NON-IMPAIRMENT of the president’s power
appointment to which is vested in him by law, when: (a) the of pardon. Constitutionally, SC said, these are the limitations of
officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform the pardoning power of the president:
his duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause; or a. It cannot be extended in cases of impeachment;
(b) there exists a vacancy;
b. It cannot be extended when the decision is not yet
(2) The person designated shall receive the compensation final. Meaning, the judgment of conviction is not yet
attached to the position, unless he is already in the final;
government service in which case he shall receive only such
additional compensation as, with his existing salary, shall not c. Cases involving violations of election laws, rules and
exceed the salary authorized by law for the position filled. The regulation in which there was no favorable
compensation hereby authorized shall be paid out of the funds recommendation from the COMELEC.
appropriated for the office or agency concerned.
Those are the only limitations and Congress cannot, by
(3) In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) legislation, operate to delimit the pardoning power of the
year. President.
Second, a preambular clause or usually what is referred to as
(5) Executive Clemencies the “whereas” clauses is technically not part of the law. In the
same breadth, in the issuance of a pardon, the preambular
Art. VII, Sec. 19 clauses are not part of the pardon. The pardon is that part
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in where the president extends the pardon and extends pardon in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, what status or condition. And the reading tells us that this
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, phrase regarding the grant of pardon where the last sentence
after conviction by final judgment. is “hereby restored to his full civil and political rights”,
according to SC, there is no condition as to the grant of
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the pardon. So since he is restored to his civil and political rights
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. fully, the right to seek public position is restored.
Art. IX(C), Sec. 5 - COMELEC Q: Still on pardoning powers, when is a judgment of

conviction considered final?
No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for
violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be a. When there is no appeal;
granted by the President without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission. b. The accused begins to observe sentence;
c. There is probation;
The pardoning power of the president is executive in
d. There is waiver of the right to appeal expressly made
character. It is discretionary, final and unappealable. When
in writing.
you talk about generally the pardoning power of the president
to grant pardon, commutations, reprieves, unless otherwise Q: Is amnesty part of the pardoning power?
limited by the Constitution, that can be granted by the
president to anybody as he pleases and it could not be A: In the case of MAGDALO VS. COMELEC (2012), the SC
questioned as with grave abuse of discretion provided there is simply reinstated what’s the difference between pardon and
no constitutional requirement or limitation. amnesty. Technically, amnesty is not part of the pardoning
power of the president because the pardoning power of the
president is a purely private act. That is why if you have been
RISOS-VIDAL VS. COMELEC 747 SCRA 210 (2015)
pardoned, and you were charged again, you have to plead
guilty because the courts will never take judicial notice of the
FACTS: This case of RISOS-VIDAL VS. COMELEC, this has grant of pardon to an individual because while it’s an official
something to do with the grant of pardon to former president act of the president, it’s a private act on the part of the
Estrada. Estrada was convicted with the Sandiganbayan for accused.
plunder in September of 2007. In October of 2007, he was
granted presidential pardon. Whereas amnesty is an act of the sovereign. It gives reprieve
to all covered by the amnesty proclamation that’s why it
One of the preambular clauses said: “WHEREAS, Joseph requires not only the act of the president but the concurrence
Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no longer seek any of congress under sec. 19 which makes it a sovereign act so to
elective position or office” and then the next line “IN VIEW speak. The sovereign is no longer seeking the prosecution of
HEREOF and pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by those covered by the amnesty proclamation that’s why all
the Constitution, I hereby grant executive clemency to JOSEPH those which fall under the crimes or offenses for which the
EJERCITO ESTRADA, convicted by the Sandiganbayan of amnesty proclamation has been issued officially by the
Plunder and imposed a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is president as concurred by congress at any stage, whether they
hereby restored to his civil and political rights.” have not yet been arrested, they have been arrested, they
In 2010, he ran for president and lost so the issue has never have been prosecuted or convicted already or serving sentence
been brought to the SC. By sheer accident when Cory Aquino already, they are all (??) as if there is no crime having been
died, PNOY had one. committed.
54 | P a g e
Unlike in pardon, pardon seeks to grant reprieve or relief from Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all
the effects of the conviction. The conviction remains a fact. It its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
is not obliterated. What is obliterated would be the effects of proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
conviction. Like in Magdalo, when their application to aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
participate in the party-list system was not granted or denied Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation
on the ground of (??) of violence, the SC said that the denial or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress,
was not attended with grave abuse of discretion. It just so if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
happened that an amnesty was so declared by the State. And requires it.
so if Magdalo will refile their application, SC said, that
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
COMELEC could no longer use the fact that they committed
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
acts of rebellion as the basis of denying their application
accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
because an amnesty has already been issued. But as to the
earlier decision of the COMELEC, SC said that was justified The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
because there was yet to be an amnesty proclamation issued. filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
Henceforth, because amnesty looks back and as if it has not proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
been committed, they can reapply to participate in the party- of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
list system, the next time, they should not be denied simply decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
because by amnesty, it’s as if they have not committed acts of
treason or rebellion. They, in the eyes of the law, have not A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
done anything wrong which would allow further prosecution. Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
(b) Pardon distinguished from parole jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
Q: Is parole or pardon part of the clemency powers of
privilege of the writ.
the president? Can the resident grant probation?
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
A: Of course not. It is granted by the court upon persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in
recommendation of the parole and probation board. or directly connected with the invasion.
Q: Parole, is that part? During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within
A: Technically, no because it’s not the president who grants
three days, otherwise he shall be released.
parole. Parole is granted after the minimum of the independent
sentence has been rendered and there has been a favorable The Presidential legal counsel has changed the grounds for
recommendation from the parole board that the convict shall declaration of martial law. Section 18 Article VII is your
be released under the terms of his parole. Commander-in-Chief Power Clause. There are three (3)
(e) Sanctions for violations of conditional pardon. There things that your President can do there.
are two options: First, to call out such armed forces to prevent or
a. to proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of the suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
Revised Administrative Code Second, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
b. to proceed against him under Article 159 of the corpus
Revised Penal Code Third, is to declare martial law
Q: Does pardoning power apply to administrative According to Atty. Panelo, that Martial law could be declared
cases? on the ground of public safety requirement. He forgot that
Section 18, - he did not mind the comma - that the provision
A: Provided it is with respect to executive officials or those
under the disciplining authority of the president, the president states that:
can extend pardon as to them and, therefore, they can be …in case of invasion or rebellion, (there’s a comma)
relieved from the effects of the imposition of administrative whenever public safety requires it, he may, or the
liabilities as to them. So since local board of officials, President may suppressed the privilege of the writ or
depending on the position, can be subject to the disciplining place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
authority of the president through the DILG secretary, if one law.
has been imposed, they can be pardoned by the president. Of
course this does not apply to those who have been found The grounds for suppressing lawless violence or invasion or
administratively liable in other branches of government rebellion are not provided for under Section 18. This is part of
because the authority to discipline them lies in other officers the ordinary powers of the President - to suppress such lawless
and not the president. violence, invasion or rebellion. But in cases of suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaration of
Martial law the grounds are clear, either, there must have to
August 12 (ALLora) be invasion OR rebellion AND public safety requires it.
That justifies the declaration of martial law being part of the
(6) Powers of Commander-in-Chief
so-called police power of the President that there is a public
Article VII, SEC. 18. The President shall be the Commander- safety requirement. By itself public safety is not a ground for
in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it declaring martial law. Because Atty. Panelo said the drug
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to problem has reached a level that public safety is affected and
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In therefore martial law to be declared. Good that there has been
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, no other statements coming from him after Sen. Drilon asked
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the the question what Constitution has he been studying. Because
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines even a first year law student would know that public safety is
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours not a ground but a precondition in relation to invasion or
from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the rebellion. Meaning even if there is invasion or rebellion but if
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall public safety does not require the declaration or suspension,
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
55 | P a g e
the declaration or suspension could never be justified even On December 9, 2009 Congress, in joint session, convened to
under Section 18. review the validity of the Presidents action. But, two days
later before Congress could act, the President issued
Presidential Proclamation 1963, lifting martial law and
What are the effects if there is a suspension? restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Maguindanao.
We all know that it simply would:
Petitioners Fortun and others brought ht the present actions
1. Extend the validity of the period of detention without to challenge the constitutionality of President Arroyos
charge from the usual or normal periods under Article Proclamation 1959. But, given the prompt lifting of that
125 of the RPC to 72 hrs. It grants the state the right proclamation before Congress could review it and before any
to arrest and detain without warrant, within the serious question affecting the rights and liberties of
period of detention not more than 72 hrs, in order to Maguindanaos inhabitants could arise, the Court deems any
charge that person for any kind of rebellion or for any review of its constitutionality the equivalent of beating a dead
crimes or felonies which are inherent or connected to horse.
invasion. It does not justify prolong detention without
any charge, only up to 72 hours. Ruling: President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
2. We all remember that the suspension would apply of habeas corpus before the joint houses of Congress could
only to persons who are arrested, detained, and fulfill their automatic duty to review and validate or invalidate
eventually charged for rebellion or any crimes or the same. The pertinent provisions of Section 18, Article VII
felonies inherent or in connection with invasion. It of the 1987 Constitution state:
does not apply to any other offenses, other than
those, even if the entire country is placed under a Sec. 18. The President shall be the
suspended writ. Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of
the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
3. Even if the privilege is suspended, a petition for the he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
issuance of the writ of habeas corpus can still be filed. suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In
The judge may still issue the writ if the petition is case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
sufficient in form and substance. What cannot be requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
done however is to seek the release of the person days, suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas
detained if he has been detained under the corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
suspended privilege. Meaning, if it is still within the 72 under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
hours, he could not be ordered released in order to proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
give the state a chance to either file a case or to privilege of writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
manufacture a trumped-up charge to justify the submit a report in person or in writing to the
eventual detention. Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
ART III, SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of special session, may revoke such proclamation or
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive proclamation or suspension for a period to be
bail shall not be required. determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The final thing there is that the right to bail shall not be denied
even if there is a suspended clause.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
FORTUN VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
These cases concern the constitutionality of a presidential without any need of a call.
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege xxx
of habeas corpus in 2009 in a province in Mindanao which
were withdrawn after just eight days. Although the above vests in the President the power to
proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ
Facts: On November 23, 2009 57 innocent civilians were of habeas corpus, he shares such power with the
gunned down and buried under shoveled dirt on a highway in Congress. Thus:
Maguindanao. On November 24 President Arroyo issued
Presidential Proclamation 1946, declaring a state of 1. The Presidents proclamation or suspension is temporary,
emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, good for only 60 days;
and Cotabato City to prevent and suppress similar lawless
2. He must, within 48 hours of the proclamation or
violence in Central Mindanao. On December 4, 2009
suspension, report his action in person or in writing to
President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1959
Congress;
declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus in that province except for identified areas 3. Both houses of Congress, if not in session must jointly
of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. convene within 24 hours of the proclamation or suspension
for the purpose of reviewing its validity; and
Two days later or on December 6, 2009 President Arroyo
submitted her report to Congress in accordance with Section 4. The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or affirm the
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which required her, Presidents proclamation or suspension, allow their limited
within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law or the effectivity to lapse, or extend the same if Congress deems
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to warranted.
submit to that body a report in person or in writing of her
It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution the President
action.
and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the
56 | P a g e
power to proclaim martial law or suspend the HELD: The SC has the authority (under the 1973
privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus. They exercise Constitution) to inquire into the existence of a factual basis
the power, not only sequentially, but in a sense jointly for the issuance of a presidential proclamation suspending
since, after the President has initiated the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of
proclamation or the suspension, only the Congress determining the constitutional sufficiency thereof. Far
can maintain the same based on its own evaluation of from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the
the situation on the ground, a power that the privilege of the writ is circumscribed, confined and restructed,
President does not have. not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions essential
to its existence, but also as regards the time when and the
Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the
place where it may be exercised. The requisite for a valid
Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the
suspension is outlined in Sec. 10 of Art. VII of the 1935
factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper
Constitution. The President declared in Proclamation No. 889,
suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to
as amended, that both conditions are present. Upon the basis
exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather
of the evidence presented, the court rules on the validity of
than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express
Proclamation No. 889.
duty to defend the Constitution through such review should
the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying
constitutional validity of the Presidents proclamation of the system of Government of the Philippines, the Executive is
martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first supreme within his own sphere. However, the separation of
a political question in the hands of Congress before it powers, under the Constitution, is NOT ABSOLUTE. It goes
becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under
which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of
With respect to declarations of martial law, the provisions of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the sphere
the Constitution would seem to suggest that the initial call of allotted to him by the Basic Law (Constitution), and the
the President as interpreted in the case of Fortun vs. authority to determine whether or not he has so acted -- is
Macapagal-Arroyo, that the declaration of martial law is as vested in the Judiciary Department, which, in this aspect is in
we have discussed before, exercised together with Congress. turn constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such
Not one after the other or not in seriatim, but simultaneously, authority, the function of the Judiciary is merely to check,
because Congress could only revoke the declaration of the NOT to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely
President -- when the President declares Martial law it is whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his
supposed to be valid until Congress revokes it. jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to
determine the wisdom of his act.
And part of the discussion in Fortun vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
is that the Congress must have to be given the opportunity to
One final item in the case of Fortun vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
go over the report of the Executive and see whether they
is w/n the provision in Section 18 that the SC must have to
could revoke the said declaration. The same meeting(?) is also
resolve the petition filed within 30 days is divested of
true with the suspension of privilege and the SC will only come
jurisdiction if it fails to resolve within the 30-day period. The
in if:
SC said NO; once jurisdiction is acquired it is exercised until
1. Congress fails to exercise its duty; or the case is disposed of. Stated differently, even if the decision
in such petition questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis
2. There is an appropriate petition filed questioning the has not been resolved, the decision has not been promulgated
sufficiency of the factual basis for such declaration or within the 30-day period as mandated by the Constitution, the
suspension. SC is not ousted of its jurisdiction.
The declaration now has been considered as a justiciable
question therefore which under the ’73 Constitution and the FORTUN VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
cases decided thereunder was supposed to be a political
question beyond the courts to review. But because of the Issue: w/n the provision in Section 18 that the SC must have
present provision now which took the case of: to resolve the petition filed within 30 days is divested of
jurisdiction if it fails to resolve within the 30-day period
Lansang vs. Garcia among others, such declaration is now
subject to court review. Nonetheless, even if it is a justiciable Ruling: But those 30 days, fixed by the Constitution, should
question, the extent of the power of the court to resolve such be enough for the Court to fulfill its duty without pre-empting
issue is only limited to w/n the factual basis is sufficient. It congressional action. Section 18, Article VII, requires the
cannot go beyond such issue of sufficiency. And in the President to report his actions to Congress, in person or in
discussion of certain cases, the SC said they could not go into writing, within 48 hours of such proclamation or
the veracity of the claim as to the existence of the factual basis suspension. In turn, the Congress is required to convene
because the courts will only determine whether there are facts without need of a call within 24 hours following the
sufficient to justify that there is either invasion or rebellion, Presidents proclamation or suspension. Clearly, the
and importantly the public safety requires that such suspension Constitution calls for quick action on the part of the
or declaration should be made. Congress. Whatever form that action takes, therefore, should
give the Court sufficient time to fulfill its own mandate to
LANSANG VS. GARCIA review the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension
within 30 days of its issuance.
FACTS: On August 21, 1971, while the Liberal Party was If the Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill its
holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda, Manila, 2 hand duty respecting the proclamation or suspension within the
grenades were thrown. As a consequence, 8 persons died short time expected of it, then the Court can step in, hear the
and numerous persons were seriously injured. On August 23, petitions challenging the Presidents action, and ascertain if it
the President of the Philippines announced the issuance of has a factual basis. If the Court finds none, then it can annul
Proclamation No. 889 suspending the writ of habeas corpus. the proclamation or the suspension. But what if the 30 days
Petitioners assail the validity of Proclamation No. 889. given it by the Constitution proves inadequate? Justice Carpio
ISSUE: Whether or not Proclamation No. 889 is himself offers the answer in his dissent: that 30-day period
unconstitutional. does not operate to divest this Court of its jurisdiction over
the case. The settled rule is that jurisdiction once acquired is
57 | P a g e
not lost until the case has been terminated. problem. But come to think of it how do you solve traffic in
Metro Manila?
The problem in this case is that the President aborted the
proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the There is one suggestion, if you are familiar with EDSA, make
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao in just EDSA one way and the other way should go to the C5
eight days. In a real sense, the proclamation and the complex. Just like in Davao, we have one-way streets so that
suspension never took off. The Congress itself adjourned the jam on two-way streets would be avoided. But how
without touching the matter, it having become moot and exactly, even if the President has emergency powers? In social
academic. media those who have not voted for Duterte were saying, why
give him he might be exercising what they fear as the power
(7) Emergency Powers to declare Martial Law. But again, there is a difference
between Emergency Powers and Commander-in Chief Power.
ART. VI, SEC. 23.
The bottom-line is that in order to eliminate the so-called delay
xxx in Congressional work to come up with legislative or legislation
to address a declared national emergency, the power is
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress
delegated to President so that in effect he is authorized to
may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
exercise.
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national The emergency powers of the President shall be considered to
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, be withdrawn or cease to have effect if withdrawn by
such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. resolution of Congress OR if Congress by next adjournment is
deemed to have revoked or withdrawn the Emergency Powers
Commander-in Chief clause is usually distinguished or
of the President.
discussed with in relation to the emergency powers. Monday,
you must have read in the newspaper there has been a series (8) Contracting and Guaranteeing Foreign Loans (not
of senate hearings already with respect to the request of the discussed)
President to be granted emergency powers.
ART VII, SEC. 20. The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with
Emergency Powers Commander-in Chief Power
the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary
1. delegated authority 1. power in its original form, it Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of
is not delegated. the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of
2. the President so exercise its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or
2. valid Constitutional guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and
legislative power it is
delegation of the controlled corporations which would have the effect of
because the legislative
power to legislate, increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as
bodies are not functioning.
technically; may be provided by law.
ART XII, SEC. 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in
accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary
While the Constitution in Section 18 emphasizes that the authority. Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed
Constitution shall continue to be in effect, all other institutions by the Government shall be made available to the public.
shall continue to function especially the courts and legislative
assemblies. The reality of things may be otherwise because of (9) Power over Foreign affairs
the so-called actual skirmishes in the theaters of war where A few matters there with respect to the Power of the President
Martial law has been declared. Courts may not be functioning, over Foreign Affairs, as head of State the President represents
legislative bodies may not also be functioning, therefore it may the country in foreign relations. Two matters in your outline:
necessitate the President would exercise legislative power. But
that is not delegated to him that is original as to him because 1. With respect to treaty-making; and
such legislative assemblies are no longer functioning. 2. Deportation of undesirable alien.
We also know that under Section 18 the military courts are not
given jurisdiction over civilians. But again, if regular courts are VINUYA VS. ROMULO (2014)
not functioning there may be in need for the military court to
be exercising or dispensing “judicial power” within the area Facts: This involves the Filipina comfort women during the
covered by martial law and while martial law is in (inaudible). Japanese occupation wherein they tried to bring their case
against the Japanese government, to no avail. So herein
In Emergency Powers, there are limitations provided for
Petitioners pray that the Court order the Secretary of Foreign
by the Constitution.
Affairs and the Executive Secretary to espouse the claims of
1. There must have to be a law authorizing the Filipina comfort women for an official apology, legal
President to exercise delegated authority; compensation and other forms of reparation from Japan.
Secretary Romulo refused and so they filed a case for
2. It must be for a limited period; mandamus.
3. It must be subject to restrictions as Congress should ISSUES: W/N the court can compel the Philippine
provide; and government to file their claims in the ICJ? NO.
4. It must all be necessary to exercise that power to Ruling: Here, the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive
carry out and declare the national policy. Department the conduct of foreign relations for the
With respect to the discussions on the emergency power Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim
sought by Pres. Duterte to solve the traffic in Metro Manila, against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive
they were looking at the possibility of allowing him to procure, determination and judgment of the Executive Department.
not complying with the national procurement act. So direct The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the
issue or issuances which may ordinary should have been conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department.
issued by Congress in order to be able to solve such traffic Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department,
58 | P a g e
either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our After the terms of the treaty have been negotiated
foreign relations with Japan in a certain manner. by both states or by the contracting states, there is
the second phase which is the signature phase.
When we say treaty-making the Case of Vinuya vs Romulo 2. Signature phase.
tells us again -- there are two decisions there 2010 and 2014 --
that with respect to foreign relations that is still within the This is just to authenticate what has been agreed
concept of political question. If you remember, the case was during or as a result of the negotiation.
about the needs or demands for the PH state to file a case
3. The third phase is Ratification
against Japan for restitution or damages for our Comfort
women. But SC they could not compel the Executive to file the In ratification it is not accurate to say that even if
suit in their favor because that may affect foreign relations. there is a senate concurrence required in our
Because foreign relations or matters of foreign relations is still Constitution that the ratification requires
within the political question concept. concurrence per se because ratification is left with
the President. Only that after the President has
So if the President will call an ambassador, he could not be
ratified it, for the ratification to be “valid’ there
stopped even by a court action, by prohibition. (You should not
must have to be concurrence of the Senate as
do that; the President should be prohibited uttering such
required by the Constitution. What it simply
inflammatory statements against an ambassador of a foreign
requires or allows or grants the senate is the power
state of a country because it may affect the relation.) It’s all up
to give or withhold its concurrence to the
to him. No citizen can file, no court can grant a writ of
ratification by the President. Ratification is complete
prohibition to prohibit the President from saying so after he
once the President ratifies it but it will not be
has apologized to the Chief Justice. You could not file a
binding if according to the Constitution it has not
complaint, a petition for mandamus for him to apologize to the
been concurred by the Senate.
foreign ambassador to the PH for making such utterance. It’s
all up to him whether he would or would not apologize for 4. The fourth phase of treaty making is
that, whether he would continue to utter statements that may exchange of ratified instruments.
inflame foreign relation, because as Head of State that is
The question here should the office of the President
within his prerogative.
be compelled by writ of mandamus in a petition
A. Treaty-Making filed that all treaties ratified by it must have to be
refer to the senate for concurrence? SC said No,
ART VII, SEC. 21. No treaty or international because even if it has been ratified by the
agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred President, the President may withhold the
in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the concurrence. While it may be a dangerous thing to
Senate. do because the other contracting state or states
With respect to treaty-making, your old case, 2005 case may have expected that to be done, still the
of Pimentel vs. Office. President cannot be compelled to submit it to the
Senate for concurrence. It’s part of his prerogative
as President.
PIMENTEL VS. OFFICE (462 SCRA 265, 2005)
B. Deportation of Undesirable Aliens
FACTS: The Rome Statute established the International
With respect to deportation of undesirable aliens, we
Criminal Court with power to exercise jurisdiction over
all know that the stay of foreigners in PH is a matter
persons for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity,
of privilege. There may be some acts of the
war crimes and the crime of aggression. While the Philippines
President ordinarily may be questionable, but it is
signed the Statute on Dec. 28, 2000, the Office of the
within his prerogative to allow the admission of a
President did not ratify it in accordance with its terms and did
foreigner here. Or the power to order that the
not transmit it to the Senate for its concurrence.
foreigner be removed from the country. There is no
ISSUE: May a petition for mandamus lie to compel the legal requirement for a conviction for a foreigner to
Office of the Executive Secretary and the DFA to bring the be removed from PH, for so long as there is a prior
signed copy to the Senate for its concurrence? determination that the continued stay of the
foreigner in the country is inimical to the public
HELD: No. The President, being the head of the state, is interest which is a broad ground, the privilege to
regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations stay may be revoked or may be denied. Or such
and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. foreigner may be ordered arrested even without a
In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole court issued warrant of arrest because there has
authority to negotiate with other states. Nonetheless, the already been a prior determination of undesirability
Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring so that that foreigner may be deported immediately
the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for and removed from PH territory.
the validity of the treaty entered into by him. The role of the
Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its The rest of the items power of legislation we have taken
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within all of them, immunity from suits we have discussed that
the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to under presidential privilege which we included the
the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, Presidential immunity from suits.
refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a
treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step
that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the
V. STRUCTURE AND POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
competence of the President alone, which cannot be
encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. ARTICLE VIII
C. THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
In a petition for mandamus, the SC said that there are four (4)
stages in treaty making.
1. The Supreme Court
1. Negotiation.
59 | P a g e
a. Composition (Article VIII, Section 4) SEC. 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of
SEC. 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar
Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or, Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no
in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. confirmation.
Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the
appointments within ninety days from the submission of the
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, list.
international or executive agreement, which shall be heard by
the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under Lists of nominees submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council
the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including (JBC) at least three (3), with the SC to be done within 90 days
those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation from the occurrence of vacancy. For all the other collegiate
of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, courts and lower courts, 90 days from the submission of the
ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the list.
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took In the case of De Castro vs. JBC there was an issue, we
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted already know what that main issue was: Whether the
thereon. appointments to the Judiciary are covered by the midnight
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or appointments ban.
resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the DE CASTRO VS. JBC (2010)
case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the
concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the Facts: A controversy has arisen from the forthcoming
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17,
banc; Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down 2010, or seven days after the presidential election. Under
by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article
be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. VIII, that vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the
occurrence thereof from a list of at least three nominees
Of course you know that there is nothing new of the
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.
composition of SC. SC Resolution No. 2-89 - that is an old but
still good resolution with respect to the relationship of the Issue (1): Whether the appointments to the Judiciary are
court en banc and court division with respect to cases handled covered by the midnight appointments ban.
by it.
Whether the incumbent President is constitutionally
Basically it tells us that the court en banc is not an appellate or proscribed from appointing the successor of Chief Justice
review court of the division. Any division case may be referred Reynato S. Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010 until
to the court en banc provided certain conditions are met: the ban ends at 12:00 noon of June 30, 2010
1. there is no resolution yet on the division case; Ruling: Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition
contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of
2. the division by majority must have decided or resolve
Members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly
to refer the case to the en banc;
done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous
3. A majority of the en banc must have to agree as well ordering of the provisions. They would have easily and surely
to receive their referral; written the prohibition made explicit in Section 15, Article VII
as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of
4. The grants of the referral or the acceptance of it or the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section
denial shall not be subject to any review. So it’s 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only
largely base on the discretion of the en banc w/n it reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting
should accept the referral by a majority of the President making appointments within two months before the
division. The case which has yet to be resolved should next presidential elections and up to the end of the
be heard by the court en banc. President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the
Members of the Supreme Court.
b. Appointment and Qualifications We cannot permit the meaning of the Constitution to be

stretched to any unintended point in order to suit the
Article VIII Section 7(1), Section 8(5), Section purposes of any quarter.
9
SEC. 7.(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the The other question raised there, w/n the Pres could refuse to
Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a appoint from the list submitted by the JBC and would asked
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the the JBC to add more names to the list. Or is the President
Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age and, must confined to the names as contained in the list? The vetting is
have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or done by the JBC, the JBC votes on the applicants and prepares
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. a list of at least three (3) names. This question has not been
answered in that case of De Castro, but this time around, a
xxx new petition has been filed in relation to the appointments in
the SB.
SEC. 8.
If you remember in April last year, a law was signed by PNOY
xxx
adding two more divisions in the SB. The divisions from five
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of (5) now it is seven (7). Three (3) members of Five (5) that
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise would be Fifteen (15). There were vacancies for 16th, 17th,
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, meaning two more divisions. Applicants
assign to it. filed their applications to the JBC. JBC processed them,
withered them and prepared a list of nominees for each of the
60 | P a g e
vacancies 16th to 21st -- the three members to the two (2) ART. VIII, SEC. 10.The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
additional divisions. Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of
There were two appointments made where one was appointed lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in
to the 21st position, but her name was included in the list for office, their salary shall not be decreased.
the 16th position. But PNOY appointed her to another and so Salary and security of tenure form part what we collectively
was with Justice Musngi who came from Malacanang, he was refer to as safeguards of Judicial Independence.
included in one list but was appointed for another position.
ART. XVIII, SEC. 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise,
Can a person be shortlisted for a particular position but is the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred
appointed to another? Say both of them were for the 16 th
thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the
position but they were appointed to the 21st and 20th position. Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the
The IBP National filed a petition to the SC questioning that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty
appointment on the theory that if your name is shortlisted for thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House
a particular position, you can only be appointed to that of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme
position where your name has been shortlisted. Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions,
two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of
Q: Meaning can the President have the discretion to appoint a the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand
person whose name has not been shortlisted for a particular pesos each.
position?
There is prohibition on diminution of the salary of the SC or
A: It’s quite certain if it is a single position like lower courts. If
the Judiciary, so that they will remain independent.
you have been shortlisted for RTC branch 15 you cannot be
appointed to RTC Branch 20 because your name does not
appear in that list for RTC branch 20.
d. Security of Tenure
But in collegial bodies there may have to be a different
There is also the provision on the security of tenure.
interpretation. Is the appointment of one person to a collegial
position even if his name does not appear in one list or one ART. VIII, SEC.11. The Members of the Supreme Court and
vacancy would he not be qualified to be appointed to another judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
position in the same collegial court? until they reached the age of seventy years or become
By the way De Castro vs. JBC there was also one question incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The
asked which was also not answered. Applicants for the position Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline
in the SC should also be processed/vetted in the JBC, that’s judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
typically what the rule says as the constitution requires. majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
What is the purpose of vetting in the JBC? To know whether
you have all the qualifications and none of the ART. VIII, SEC.2.
disqualifications. Of course you must have to have friends in xxx
the JBC to get the majority of the 7 votes and you must have
to have friends in the Presidential Management Staff Office so No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
that your name will be pushed for the President to sign, but undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
that is not in the Constitution. xxx
But what if you are a sitting justice of SC like Senior Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio? He applied for the position of CJ.
Should he be vetted by the JBC, should his application be -- e. Removal
because if you are from outside no problem more so if you
have not been in the judiciary. Because how many years in Refer to ART. VIII, SEC.11 above.
practice to be qualified to the SC? 15 years. ART. XI, SEC. 2. The President, Vice-President, the Members
What’s the age requirement? Then there is this proven of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
competence, integrity, probity, independence. So if you did not Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
come from any lower court or you came from private practice office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
then you must have to prove that you have all these violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
qualifications. corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
other public officers and employees may be removed from
But if you are a sitting justice of the SC, you have to prove office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
again that you have proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence? Meaning, prior to your application as CJ you as
a SC Justice may not have been independent? That you have
With respect to the SC, the ground for removing them would
accepted bribes or something? That’s why you have to be
be only through impeachment, only when they are secured in
vetted again? Will the fact that you have been appointed
their stay in office would their independence be maintained.
before as to the qualification on the practice of law changed
when you apply to become the chief justice? They have yet to
resolve that because it has not been answered, because the
f. Fiscal Autonomy
De Castro case did not raise those particular questions. But it
was a good point raised because if you are already in the SC ART VIII, SEC. 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
why should you be vetted again? Can the JBC say, “ah you are Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the
not qualified to the CJ, of the 7 votes you only got 2.” Imagine legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
how would you feel about it, the CJ who sits there did not year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
even vote for you? Those are the discussions with respect to released.
appointments and qualification.
There is also the concept of fiscal autonomy and when you say
c. Salary fiscal autonomy related to that would be the provisions on
Article VIII Section 10, Article XVIII Section 17 non-diminution of appropriations. At the height of the DAP
61 | P a g e
case, before it was decided you may have come across several basis in allowing the sale of the Judiciary’s properties to
articles saying that the entire Judiciary has been a recipient of retiring Justices of the Supreme Court and the appellate
funds coming from what similarly is known as DAP. Meaning courts:
from the Executive, it’s transferred because the Judiciary has
been asking for it. There was even some letters published to xxx
show that the SC through the CJ has been asking for funding. by the constitutional mandate of fiscal autonomy as defined
Normally, they may have referred to the halls of justice or our in Bengzon v. Drilon (G.R. No. 103524, 15 April 1992, 208
court houses/buildings. SCRA 133, 150) the Judiciary has "full flexibility to allocate
On the funding traditionally of infrastructure in the Judiciary and utilize (its) resources with the wisdom and dispatch that
are course through the DOJ, not to the Judiciary. The reason (its) needs require";
for this is the Non-diminution of Appropriations, because let’s xxx
say next year the Judiciary would require 500 Million for the
construction or rehabilitation of new court houses or existing the long-established tradition and practice of Justices or
houses. That will be included in the budget for Judiciary. In the Members of appellate courts of purchasing for sentimental
ensuing year, after it has been completed of course they don’t reasons at retirement government properties they used
need the 500 Million. But the Constitution cannot take that during their tenure has been recognized as a privilege
500M away or out of the Judiciary’s budget because the enjoyed only by such government officials; and
appropriation of the Judiciary should equal at current levels. At xxx
least increase but never diminished. For which reason if it
refers to infrastructure or hard projects they are never the exercise of such privilege needs regulation to the end
included in the judiciary’s appropriations, so that they can be that respect for sentiments that a retiring Justice attaches to
taken back if it is no longer required. properties he or she officially used during his or her tenure
should be in consonance with the need for restraint in the
There is also an issue with respect to additional amounts utilization and disposition of government resources.
receive by the Judiciary in the form of JDF (Judiciary
Development Fund), part of the docket fees paid by litigants Thus, under the guarantees of the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy
whenever they file cases. It has been distributed by the SC to and its independence, the Chief Justice and the Court En
all the employees in the Judiciary through the years and there Banc determine and decide the who, what, where, when and
was a threat to take the JDF away from the Judiciary. how of the privileges and benefits they extend to justices,
judges, court officials and court personnel within the
There were suggestions to enact a law, to amend the existing parameters of the Court’s granted power; they determine the
law granting JDF to the Judiciary. Question is, can they do terms, conditions and restrictions of the grant as grantor.
that? While Congress can enact law amending, repealing
existing laws it will go by Constitutional prohibition on non- In the context of the grant now in issue, the use of the
diminution of appropriations. That cannot be taken by formula provided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 is part of
legislation for the simple reasons that these amount have the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to determine
already been forming part of the budget or allocation for the the manner the granted retirement privileges and benefits
Judiciary and so they (Congress) should not be allowed to can be availed of. Any kind of interference on how these
enact a law to take this fund away. Rightfully so congress did retirement privileges and benefits are exercised and availed
not pursue because it would be certain that there will be of, not only violates the fiscal autonomy and independence of
petition filed eventually which will reach the SC and the SC will the Judiciary, but also encroaches upon the constitutional
say okay that law is unconstitutional. duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court
En Banc to manage the Judiciary’s own affairs. (underscoring
RE: COA Opinion (2012) supplied)
As a final point, we add that this view finds full support in the
Facts: On June 8, 2010, the Legal Services Sector of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM),
Office of the General Counsel of the Commission on Audit Volume 1, particularly, Section 501 of Title 7, Chapter 3,
(COA), issued an opinion which found the underpayment which states:
amounting to P221,021.50, which resulted when five (5)
retired Supreme Court justices purchased from the Supreme Section 501. Authority or responsibility for property
Court the personal properties assigned to them during their disposal/divestment. – The full and sole authority
incumbency in the Court. and responsibility for the divestment and disposal of
property and other assets owned by the national
The COA attributed this underpayment to the use by the government agencies or instrumentalities, local
Property Division of the Supreme Court of the wrong formula government units and government-owned and/or
in computing the appraisal value of the purchased vehicles by controlled corporations and their subsidiaries shall be
applying the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) lodged in the heads of the departments, bureaus,
Joint Resolution No. 35 dated April 23, 1997 and its and offices of the national government, XXX.
guidelines, in compliance with the Resolution of the Court En (underscoring supplied)
Banc dated March 23, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-12-01,3 when it
should have applied the formula found in COA Memorandum This provision clearly recognizes that the Chief Justice, as the
No. 98-569-A4 dated August 5, 1998. head of the Judiciary, possesses the full and sole authority
and responsibility to divest and dispose of the properties and
Issue: W/N, the Commission on Audit (COA) encroached into assets of the Judiciary; as Head of Office, he determines the
the Court’s judicial prerogative in light of the Court’s fiscal manner and the conditions of disposition, which in this case
autonomy, when it questions and attempts to substitute the relate to a benefit. As the usual practice of the Court, this
Court’s policy in the disposal of its property. authority is exercised by the Chief Justice in consultation with
the Court En Banc. However, whether exercised by the Chief
Held: The Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy is realized through the
Justice or by the Supreme Court En Banc, the grant of such
actions of the Chief Justice, as its head, and of the Supreme
authority and discretion is unequivocal and leaves no room
Court En Banc, in the exercise of administrative control and
for interpretations and insertions.
supervision of the courts and its personnel. As the Court En
Banc’s Resolution (dated March 23, 2004) in A.M. No. 03-12- ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, the in-house
01 reflects, the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary serves as the computation of the appraisal value made by the Property
62 | P a g e
Division, Office of `Administrative Services, of the properties are not free from any valid criticism can judicial power
purchased by the retired Chief Justice and Associate Justices be exercised properly.
of the Supreme Court, based on CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35
If the President mentions that, or threatens the chief justice, is
dated April 23, 1997, as directed under the Court Resolution
that allowable? By the way have you heard the speech or the
dated March 23, 2004 in A.M. No. 03-12-01, is CONFIRMED
portion of the speech? Was that a threat or was that a
to be legal and valid. Let the Commission on Audit be
question? Meaning would you want me to declare martial law
accordingly advised of this Resolution for its guidance.
instead? Was it a threat because of the forceful tone it was
said? (ang mga bisaya gahi mang gud murag pirmi suko ba
unlike Ilonggos even if they are angry already, it’s sweet to
This case of the RE: COA Opinion, this involves the question hear “patyon taka kung di ka mubati sa akon XD)
of whether or not which formula should be used to determine But was that a threat because there were some commentaries
how the vehicles of the Justices should be valued. Because saying, it was a question raised. Would you allow me to this?
there has been a tradition if not a practice that a retiring Or would you rather I declare martial law? It’s a matter of
Justices could buy based on a valuation made, the vehicles perception how, but yesterday as contained in today’s news he
which were assign to them. The issue was whether the apologized already. Nahimasmasan siya after seeing Hidilyn
formula use by the SC was the formula to be used because the Diaz which he gave an additional 2 Million. Probably we are in
COA made not really a notice of disallowance but there was a the wrong field! Should we start lifting weights? LOL – more
discrepancy on the notice that there was an undervaluation of chika about Hidilyn.
these cars because SC used a different formula other than
what COA thought should have been the proper formula. The
SC said that our formula should be used because it has been
g. Jurisdiction
approved by both the Judiciary and COA and it has been the
subject of an en banc resolution. Then they discuss there is ART VIII, SEC. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
fiscal autonomy, judicial independence, blah blah, and said Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
even in the use of a valuation the SC has the authority by law.
because that’s part of their Judicial independence. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
Also there is a provision in the Constitution which provides for settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
automatic release of appropriation, where there is no need for demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
the SC to demand from the DBM for the release of the there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
appropriations for the Judiciary as contained in the General or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
Appropriations Act (GPA). We are aware that once the budget instrumentality of the Government.
is approved, it becomes the GPA it is returned to the executive.
The department of Budget and Management is tasked to ART VIII, SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
release these appropriations based on a request if there is powers:
money available or funds available. For the judiciary there is
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
no need for them to make such demand every so often
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
because constitution says these must have to be released
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
regularly and automatically. and this case of RE: clarification
and habeas corpus.
or CSC vs. DBM, SC said that it is understandable that there
may be the budget shortfall that government may not have all (2) Review, revise, modify , or affirm on appeal on certiorari, as
the money to fund all the appropriated items in which case the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
everybody suffers. But if money is available the judiciary and orders of lower courts in:
those enjoying fiscal autonomy must have first preference for
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
the release of the funds for their appropriations. This has
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
something to do with the no report no release policy, SC said
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
they could not be bound by it because there is no precondition
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
that could be allowed since the Constitution provides for an
automatic and xxx release of their appropriations. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
Finally the other safeguards for judicial independence in
thereto.
relation to freedom of expression, there are two principles
there: (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
1. Principles of judicial independence – simply state
that the Judiciary should be insulated by any (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
unwarranted comments and so we know when a reclusion perpetua or higher.
comment is allowable. and the principle covers two
points: (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law
is involved.
a. Institutional, meaning the court as an
institution; and (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations
as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall
b. Personal or individual, meaning the justices. not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
The justices should be free as well from such concerned.
unnecessary or unwarranted criticism
following the rule on fair criticisms with (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
respect to one’s exercise of free speech or miscarriage of justice.
expression. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
2. Open justice policy – allows criticism or enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
commentaries to the courts because to prevent such procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
free expression would probably result into abuse of Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
judicial discretions. Only an atmosphere where courts Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
63 | P a g e
courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or one sitting justice – 4 and 4. The court being equal and divided
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts the petition is denied, very short. And so the lives of more than
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless 4 Million immigrants will now be in peril because at least in the
disapproved by the Supreme Court. State of Texas, the issuances have been declared as
ineffective. Where will they go now? Go elsewhere not in
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in Texas.
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
There are only a few cases that reach the US SC unlike in our
With respect to the SC these are the cases where the SC would Jurisdiction. Rule 65 has always been the “mode of review”
hear in en banc: where cases in the lower courts would reach the SC and so our
SC is swamped. Where in the Western World can you see that
1. Those involving constitutional issues or cases; the SC is a trier of facts? -- only in the PH because we are not
2. When a petition is raised under Section 18 of Article Western World.
VII questioning the sufficiency of the exercise of his By the way there are several cases there in your outline which
Commander-in-Chief Powers. is in relation to the power of the courts to hear.
3. When the division vote is not met. 1. The case of PAGCOR vs. THUNDERBIRD, a 2014
4. There will be a referral to the division. When there is ruling.
a reversal of the doctrine, whether it has been first 2. The case of FUNA vs MECO and
laid down by the court by division or by the court en
banc that should be sought by the court en banc. 3. Kalipunan Damayan Mahihirap Inc. vs Robredo.
5. If the SC exercises its powers being the Presidential What is common in these cases? In relation to the review
Electoral Tribunal (PET), it is en banc. powers of the SC, we should follow what the SC has said that
there is a principle of hierarchy of courts. Meaning you must
6. When there is any action involving the dismissal, have to seek recourse to a court with concurrent jurisdiction
disbarment. with the SC, not to go directly to SC. Unless there is a
7. When the penalty is more than 1 year suspension or justification for skipping the hierarchy of courts and going
more than 10,000 in fine or both it shall be heard by directly to the SC because the issue is of transcendental
the SC en banc. importance.
Other than those listed, [cases] may be heard by the court by Which cases does the SC have exclusive jurisdiction over?
division. SC is allowed to sit in divisions of 3, 5, 7 members. As Original exclusive you have:
of the presence, sits in division of how many members? Five 1. electoral tribunal
(5), so there are three divisions. Despite the fact the
Constitution allows the court to hear cases by Divisions we still 2. common would be petition under section 18 to
follow the principle that there is only one SC. The allowance question the sufficiency of basis of the declaration of
for the SC to resolve cases by division is just to facilitate martial law
resolutions of cases filed before SC. The problem with our SC, All the rest may be original but concurrent: other public
at least with our set up is that a lot of cases would end up in ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
the SC. That is why it is swamped with many many cases. prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
Unlike in the US System where there is a Federal SC, only a Rule 65 is even shared with the CA and the RTC.
few cases would reach the SC.
So if there is a court where petitioners or parties could have an
You must have heard of that decision of the US SC in the initial recourse under the principle of doctrine of hierarchy of
petitions filed by Texas in relation to the immigration clause. courts, cases may be dismissed first instance is lodge with the
The shortest decision ever that I have read. This was a case SC. It should be there in the lower court so as not to swamp
involving more than 4 Million immigrants in the US. The the SC with all these petitions. Of course if the issue is novel
Obama administration have been issuing policies favoring and is of transcendental importance it can go to the SC. Again
“illegal immigrants” that they may be allowed to get social if a question of this is asked, we follow the GR where we have
security, they be allowed to work. More so or especially to to comply with the principle of hierarchy of courts. We do not
those who were brought to the US as minors or born in the US apply the exception by saying yes you can go to the SC
of illegal immigrants because of jus soli they are supposed to because the issue is of transcendental importance. Unless
be protected already but because they are undocumented they there is a prior ruing of the SC on xxx of facts stating that yes
are still considered illegal immigrants. it is of transcendental importance.
All of them Trump would want to get out first and line up
ART IX, SEC. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority
again so that they can be documented. The State of Texas
vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it
filed a petition to question the efficacy of those laws because
within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
they said it is prejudicial to the finances of the State of Texas.
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision
This started with the issuance of a driver’s license. Even if you
or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
are an undocumented immigrant if you could show you are not
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
a threat to society you can apply for a driver’s license. And
the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
driver’s license in Texas, let us assume cost $20 but half of
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
that is subsidized or paid by Texas. So for every “illegal
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
immigrant” who applies for driver’s license, there’s state
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
money spent for that. Has the State of Texas have the
of a copy thereof.
personality to question these policies of the Obama
administration in relation to these “more than 4 Million This item here on Article IX Section 7, this is the review of
immigrants?” SC of the US said yes because it has to spend decisions of your Constitutional Commissions. Just a quick run-
money if these issuances will be made to them. You know how down, only decisions of the COMELEC and the Commission on
the SC of the US resolved this? That thing I said by the federal Audit are reviewable by the SC under Rule 64 in relation to
SC but it went up to the SC of the US. SC of the US: “petition Rule 65. CSC you go to the CA, under what rule? I know you
denied the court is even as to vote.” One line, I think because know.
of the 9 members there’s one vacancy because of the death of
64 | P a g e
presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional

prohibition. That constitutional provision was intended to give
h. Congressional power over the jurisdiction of
this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its
the SC
appellate Jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate
ART VIII, SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various would unnecessarily burden the Court.
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
i. Administrative powers
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
(1) Supervision of lower courts
ART VI, SEC. 30.No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this In the letter of CJ Sereno in response to the public disclosure
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. of the President of several names of the members of judiciary
supposedly involved in the drug problem. CJ Sereno reminded
Basically two things: the President that supervision over lower courts including
1. If the Constitution has provided for the cases over judges of courts or justices of lower collegiate courts is lodge
which the SC had jurisdiction over, Congress by primarily with the SC. That it could not be with any other, even
legislation cannot affect those for obvious reasons the the office Ombudsman, under its power to investigate any
Constitution cannot be amended by mere legislation. malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance of all xxx. But it
must be made clear, it has something to do with administrative
2. But to increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC duties of judges for lower collegiate court or justices.
while it is allowable, the Constitution requires prior
concurrence of the SC so that if the SC has not If a lower collegiate court justice or a judge has committed a
previously agreed and concurred that there should be crime question is, can a charge be filed with the Ombudsman
additional task in the power of the SC to review or any prosecuting panel?
cases, It should not be considered valid without that If the president has said that these judges are engage in
prior concurrence and approval of the SC. Simply criminal act or be involved in a drug trade, is that in relation to
saying you don’t give us additional work if we do not administrative functions of a judge? Parte ba diay sa
agree to do such additional work, that is your case of administrative duties ang pamaligya ug drugs? Or the
Fabian vs. Desierto in relation to the appellate President accusing them of committing a crime, because if it’s
power of the SC in administrative cases under RA an accusation -- the president said he’s not accusing anyone,
6770 (creating or establishing office of the he’s just saying they’re in the list.
Ombudsman.)
But assuming it is an accusation that one judge is committing
FABIAN VS. DESIERTO a crime is that still within the sole prerogrative of the SC
having administrative supervision over judges and lower courts
Facts: Fabian was the major stockholder and president of justices? I’m not saying that the CJ is wrong in reminding the
PROMAT Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT) President that we have administrative supervision because that
which was engaged in the construction business w/ Agustin. is clearly provided for by the Constitution. But if the question is
Agustin was the incumbent District Engineering District asked if w/n that public accusation has something to do with
(FMED) when he allegedly committed the offenses for which admin supervision/duty of the judge or not taking it away from
he was administratively charged in the Office in the office of that verbal tussle, can the office of the Ombudsman
the Ombudsman. Misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents investigate a judge for committing a crime?
developed between the parties and when Fabian tried to You know the Ombudsman has two basic general
terminate their relationship, Agustin refused and resisted her powers:
attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of
harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the 1. Administrative powers or powers over administrative
aforementioned administrative case against him. A case cases;
ensued which eventually led an appeal to the Ombudsman – 2. Powers over criminal cases for purposes of
who inhibited himself – later the case led to the deputy Preliminary investigation.
Ombudsman. The deputy ruled in favor of Agustin and he
said the decision is final and executory. Fabian appealed the Say the judge has committed bribery, should you file it with
case to the SC. She averred that Section 27 of Republic Act the SC or will it be investigated by any other investigating body
No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) pertinently provides that not necessarily SC. Questions like the judge has failed to
-In all administrative diciplinary cases, orders, directives or render a decision within the 90-day period, that’s really
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed administrative work? The judge has a relationship with the
to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within clerk of court, in this relationship that really has something to
ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, do within the judge, why would he have an illicit relationship
directive or decision or denial of the motion for with somebody under his court?
reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of But if it is a crime assuming, take it away from the President,
Court. any complaint should it be lodge first before SC or would it be
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 27 of the Ombudsman Act is filed in any investigating body as ordinary as other individuals?
valid. Because it has nothing to do with the administrative
supervision of SC considering that the act in question is a
HELD: Taking all the foregoing circumstances in their true criminal act. That should have been the question raised.
legal roles and effects, therefore, Section 27 of Republic Act
No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court But you know when you write something in a heat, when you
from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in are passionate about it and it is there already or you said it
administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the already. When you are at ease, you have thought about it
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution probably in the gentler, calmer dispensation or your manner
against a law which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of this probably it could have said -- have you tried that if you are
Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently really angry?
65 | P a g e
Same thing with lawyers, if you receive something you file a officers shall comply with their obligations and duties under the
complaint, civil complaint. You receive the motion dismiss and law and enforce the law they can be investigated and
you think that the motion to dismiss is not grounded on appropriately sanctioned if there is finding that they have been
anything and then you write a comment to that, sleep over it with xxx to enforce the law or comply with their duties and
for a while cause anyway you have several days to file your obligations.
opposition or comment to the motion. And think of what you
(5) Appointment of officials and employees of
are going to write there, deliberately not immediately because
entire judiciary
if you are at the height of it you might be saying something or
writing something there which you did not actually -- as ART VIII, SEC 5.
President said there was no intention to malign the CJ.
Xxx
(2) Temporarily assign judges to other stations
in the public interest (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
ART VIII, SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: Of course from the clerk of court of all courts to the last
employee of a court shall be within the administrative powers
xxx of the SC to appoint. SC cannot appoint only the justices and
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations judges because it’s with the President.
as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned. j. Rule Making Power
Because the appointment made by the President from the list ART VIII, SEC 5.
of 3 nominees submitted to him by the JBC, the position is xxx
permanent. There may be a need to assign judges to others
station temporarily and that may be done by the SC because (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
it’s not a permanent appointment anyway. enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
I don’t know if you know, if one judge would want to transfer the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
to another station permanently, what would the judge do? Go Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
over the same process, apply for that vacancy with the JBC, for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all
you will be processed, you will be vetted, you will be courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
shortlisted and the President must have to appoint. So you modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
would be transferred to another station permanently because and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
the SC can only direct temporary designations. There is even a disapproved by the Supreme Court.
requirement in the Constitution that the judge concerned must
have to agree if this temporary assignment is for more than a Just a rundown: protection and enforcement of constitutional
specific period. rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar. Have you
(3) Order a change of venue or place of trial to
read the Rules of Court with respect to admission to the
avoid miscarriage of justice
practice of law? Have you gone through the provision? What
ART VIII, SECTION 5. subjects do you have to take and pass to be allowed to take
the bar exam? Only the first three-year subjects, there’s no
xxx such thing as review. That’s why in State Universities like UP,
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a all 4th year subjects are electives. They don’t have mandatory
miscarriage of justice. review classes because the Rules of Court, the minimum or
admission to the practice to take the bar initially only
enumerates the subjects that one must have to take and pass.
Wala sana tayo dito ngayon. That’s why a lot UP law students
This is especially true in criminal cases because we know that
have more time to review because they will take elective
venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional for reasons that if the
subject in 4th year and start the review when they are in 4th
crime is committed there in all probability the witnesses or
year.
both parties, especially the defense, are found in the place
where the crime is committed. And so if there should be a Two things:
change of venue, there must have to be a request made to the
1. Is it better to have review classes like this?
SC and the SC must have to agree the reason being there may
be miscarriage of justice because to hold the trial in the place 2. Or is it better to have elective subjects and have them
where it has been committed will prevent witnesses to freely review by themselves?
testify in that case.
Well, either.
(4) Discipline of Judges
Okay legal assistance of the underprivileged the rules must be
SEC. 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of simplified and inexpensive procedure for the disposition of
lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they cases, must be uniformed on all courts of the same grade.
reached the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts,
or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members Facts: Leo Echegaray is a convict subject to lethal injection
who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the (RA 8177). The SC issued on January 4, 1999 a temporary
case and voted thereon. restraining order for the execution until it ensures that there
will no longer be any repeal or modification as to the
It’s part of the supervisory powers of SC and we said in
implementation of RA 8177.
relation to the discussion of the President’s powers of
supervision, imposition of penalty is not inconsistent with the The DOJ, through the Department of Justice, filed an Urgent
power of supervision. To ensure that the lower or subordinate Motion for Reconsideration on the January 4, 1999 issuance
66 | P a g e
of the Supreme Court of a Temporary Restraining Order strengthened the independence of the judiciary by giving to
(TRO) on the execution of Echegaray. it the additional power to promulgate rules governing the
integration of the Bar.[13]
The DOJ, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that
the Court no longer has the authority to grant the TRO The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and
because: more independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced
the rule making power of this Court. Its Section 5(5),
1. That the Court lost its jurisdiction the moment it
Article VIII provides:
rendered its judgment that is already final and
executory; xxxxxxxxx
2. That it is encroaching on the powers specifically "Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
vested by the Supreme Court to the executive following powers:
department in granting the TRO;
xxxxxxxxx
3. That the purpose sought to be achieved by the
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the
TRO is nil due to certain supervening events
protection and enforcement of constitutional
that transpired
rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all
ISSUE: Whether or not the court abused its discretion in courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
execution of Echegaray despite the fact that the finality of underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
judgment has already been rendered. NO and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
Ruling: The more disquieting dimension of the submission of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
the public respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction to
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
restrain the execution of petitioner is that it can diminish the
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
independence of the judiciary. Since the implant of
remain effective unless disapproved by the
republicanism in our soil, our courts have been conceded the
Supreme Court."
jurisdiction to enforce their final decisions. In accord with this
unquestioned jurisdiction, this Court promulgated rules The rule making power of this Court was
concerning pleading, practice and procedure which, among expanded. This Court for the first time was given the
others, spelled out the rules on execution of power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
judgments. These rules are all predicated on the enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also
assumption that courts have the inherent, granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of
necessary and incidental power to control and procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But
supervise the process of execution of their most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took
decisions. Rule 39 governs execution, satisfaction and away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
effects of judgments in civil cases. Rule 120 governs supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and
judgments in criminal cases. It should be stressed procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of
that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this
practice and procedure was granted by our Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. If the
Constitutions to this Court to enhance its manifest intent of the 1987 Constitution is to strengthen the
independence, for in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz independence of the judiciary, it is inutile to urge, as public
"without independence and integrity, courts will lose that respondents do, that this Court has no jurisdiction to control
popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their vigor as the process of execution of its decisions, a power conceded
champions of justice."[9] Hence, our Constitutions to it and which it has exercised since time immemorial.
continuously vested this power to this Court for it enhances
its independence. Under the 1935 Constitution, the power The only question perhaps in this rule making power is the
of this Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, issue of whether or not Congress would still affect the rules
practice and procedure was granted but it appeared to be promulgated by the SC under its rule making powers. With
co-existent with legislative power for it was subject respect to these matters, that question has been asked in
to the power of Congress to repeal, alter or Echegaray vs Sec, at least one of the issues raised and
supplement. Thus, its Section 13, Article VIII provides: answered. Because in the previous constitutions of 1935 and
"Sec. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power 1973, there were provisions there saying that Congress shall
to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice have the power to repeal, alter, supplement the rules
and procedure in all courts, and the admission to concerning pleading, practice and procedure to the practice of
the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for law. In 1973 it says:
all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, “…which however may be repealed, altered, or supplemented
increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing by the Batasang Pambansa”
laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby
repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Those phrases found in previous Constitutions were no longer
Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to included in 1987. And so the question is asked can Congress
alter and modify the same. The Congress shall still repeal, amend, alter, supplement such rules? Pag di alam
have the power to repeal, alter or supplement ang sagot, there are two schools of thought:
the rules concerning pleading, practice and 1. The first is that it cannot be affected by
procedure, and the admission to the practice Congress. Congress can’t alter, supplement,
of law in the Philippines." amend repeal them because the phraseology in
the 1973 Constitution reiterated the power of this Court ‘87 has taken that power away from Congress.
"to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and While it is true in ‘35 and ‘73 because of the
procedure in all courts, x x x which, however, may be express provisos, that provision is no longer
repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang found in 87 thereby the intent is to deny
Pambansa x x x." congress such power.
Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further

67 | P a g e
2. The second school of thought, it is still within the the majority vote. That is for en banc
power of Congress. Because Congress has decisions.
plenary powers and the Constitution is not an
b. As to divisions, there is a provision in the
enumeration of powers but a limitation of
constitution which requires still the same
powers. And so if the Constitution does not limit
majority of the quorum but in no case shall it
the power of Congress in such respect rule
be less than three. So, if a division of the
making power of the SC, it means the Congress
supreme court sits in a division of three
will still have the power.
members, there must have to be a
But the answer in Echegaray, the SC said it has been taken unanimous vote. That is why in lower
away from Congress. Meaning Congress no longer has the collegiate courts, there is a unanimous vote
power to alter, supplement, repeal, amend the rules required, especially in the Sandiganbayan.
promulgated by the SC under its rule making power.
2. If the decision or a vote is not met:
a. In relation to an en banc case
August 16, 2016 (FBagundang)
In civil cases, it is provided in your outline in
m. Manner of sitting and votes required Rule 56 sec 7.
ARTICLE VIII RULE 56

Section 4. Section 7. Procedure if opinion is
equally divided. — Where the court en
1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
banc is equally divided in opinion, or the
Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en
necessary majority cannot be had, the
banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or
case shall again be deliberated on, and if
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
after such deliberation no decision is
ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
reached, the original action commenced in
2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, the court shall be dismissed, in appealed
international or executive agreement, or law, which cases, the judgment or order appealed
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all from shall stand affirmed; and on all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are incidental matters, the petition or motion
required to be heard en banc, including those shall be denied.
involving the constitutionality, application, or
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, There shall be a rehearing or it shall be
orders, instructions, ordinances, and other deliberated again. If upon rehearing or re-
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of deliberation, two things are possible: (1) the
a majority of the Members who actually took part in court may now come up with the required
the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted majority, or (2) the vote is still equal or the
thereon. parties are equally divided. It is said that all
original actions must have to be dismissed,
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided
all appealed cases decisions shall be
or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the
affirmed, and all incidental matters shall be
Members who actually took part in the deliberations
denied. In the case of League of Cities v.
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in
Comelec, which is the longest running case
no case without the concurrence of at least three of
in the Supreme Court where there has been
such Members. When the required number is not
at least 4 resolutions rendered by the
obtained, the case shall be decided en banc:
Supreme Court after it has been decided, the
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid
Supreme Court restated this rule under Rule
down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or
56 in relation to Administrative Matter no.
in division may be modified or reversed except by the
99-1-09-SC, which is actually reflective of
court sitting en banc.
Rule 56 section 7.
As opposed to the previous constitutions (1935 and 1973), In criminal cases, it shall be reheard.
which have provided for a specific voting requirement, we now
follow what we all know as the SHIFTING MAJORITY RULE. RULE 125 (Procedure in the Supreme
Meaning, the majority shifts for so as long as the number of Court)
those who constitute the quorum will differ. For purposes of
shifting majority, the following rules must have to be followed: Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally
divided. — When the Supreme Court en
1. There must have to be a quorum of the court. banc is equally divided in opinion or the
necessary majority cannot be had on
a. If it is en banc, and so the majority of fifteen
whether to acquit the appellant, the case
must have to be there to constitute a
shall again be deliberated upon and if no
quorum. Majority of the quorum is sufficient
decision is reached after re-deliberation,
to have a valid decision. For purposes of
the judgment of conviction of the lower
determining the number on which the
court shall be reversed and the accused
quorum is to be based, those who inhibited
acquitted. (3a)
or disqualified themselves will not be
included because they cannot actually take
part in the deliberations. Those who took Again, two things are possible: (1) if it will
part in the deliberations but did not vote or be voted upon by the required majority, then
abstained, their number shall be included for that will be the disposition of the court; (2)
purposes of determining the quorum, and If the court is equally divided, the judgment
their votes will be included in determining of conviction shall be reversed. The accused
68 | P a g e
shall be acquitted if there is still a divided upon which it is based must be stated.) In the old
vote. case of Mangelen v. CA, the court must have to
state anew the facts as well as the law on which the
new is based. This is because the court has to explain
b. In division cases, if the court is equally why the previous decision has to be abandoned or
divided, what will be done? That is the why the court has reconsidered its previous ruling and
question that has to be answered. has now come up with a new ruling.
Again, if it is denied, no problem. Only the legal ground for
denial [is required] either because the petition failed to comply
n. Requirements as to decisions with certain obscure circulars of the Supreme Court or the
Motion for Reconsideration contains new grounds that has not
Section 13. been taken and resolved by the lower court in its previous
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to decision. But if it is to be granted, the court is supposed to
it for the decision en banc or in division shall be reached in comply with the first paragraph of section 14.
consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member The usual question asked with the requirement that the
for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to decision must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law
this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a on which it is based is whether or not this provision applies to
copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served decisions of administrative bodies or tribunals, or quasi-judicial
upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, bodies. The answer is no because this is a (constitutional)
or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the requirement for court decisions. If the question is stated
reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by differently, "Should the decisions of administrative tribunals
all lower collegiate court. and quasi-judicial bodies also state the facts and the law on
Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without which it is based? " The answer is yes. As you go to the case
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law of Ang Tibay v. CIR, the Supreme Court, for the first time,
on which it is based. laid down, what we all know as the SEVEN PRIMARY
CARDINAL RIGHTS in administrative procedural due process.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a The seventh rule there is that in order to apprise the parties on
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied how the tribunal came up with the decision, the tribunal's
without stating the legal basis therefor. decision must have to state the facts and the law on which is
based. Both are based on the premise of notice or due
Requirements of decisions under sections 13 and 14 of article process. One is based on a different requirement while court
8 simply provides for the requirements on the formalities. decisions are based on section 14 of article 8.
There must have to be, under sec 13, prior consultation before
the court will reach a decision. And, as we probably will know,
any petition to the Supreme Court will go inversely to the most o. Mandatory period for deciding cases
junior Supreme Court associates then to the chief justice being
the most senior so as not as to unduly influence the vote of Section 15.
the younger or lower justices in terms of appointment. After
they have come up with a vote, then it would be assigned to a All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
writer who will pen the decision. It has been a practice in a lot Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four
of more recent decisions involving controversial issues, the PIO months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and,
of the court will release the results of the voting and the unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all
decision of the court will come later. The more recent is the lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
decision in the Grace Poe v. Comelec wherein the decision courts.
of the Supreme Court came out several days after the A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or
announcement by the PIO. resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
But technically, the practice of the Supreme Court is that they memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
have draft decisions upon voting and that will be adopted by itself.
the ponente in the ruling of the court. The certification is Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification
required to be made by the constitution that there has been a to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge
prior consultation, but the absence of such certification of prior shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the
consultation will not invalidate the decision. record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The
Section 14 provides for the more substantial requirements. It certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not
requires that the facts and the law upon which the decision is been rendered or issued within said period.
based shall be stated in the decision expressly and distinctly. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the
This is applicable to decisions on the merit. The 2nd paragraph court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have
provides for the requirement for providing for the legal basis been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve
for denial of petitions, automatic dismissals, or denial of the case or matter submitted thereto for determination,
motions for reconsiderations. without further delay.
1. It has to be emphasized that the because a motion ARTICLE VII
for reconsideration of a prior resolution or decision as (EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT)
the case maybe is denied, then the court is not
required to state the factual and legal basis therefore Section 18. xxx
but only the legal ground for such denial. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
2. Unlike if the Motion for Reconsideration is granted filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
(meaning, the court has reversed itself), then the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
prior decision is supposed to be abandoned and that of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
the court will come up with a new decision because decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
the Motion for Reconsideration has been granted. (In ARTICLE XVIII
which case, it is required that the facts and the law
69 | P a g e
(TRANSITORY PROVISIONS)
Section 12. The Supreme Court shall, within one year after b. Salary
the ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to
expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending Article VIII. Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice
in the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the effectivity and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
of this Constitution. A similar plan shall be adopted for all judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
Section 13. The legal effect of the lapse, before the
ratification of this Constitution, of the applicable period for the
decision or resolution of the cases or matters submitted for c. Congressional Power to Reorganize and Security of
adjudication by the courts, shall be determined by the Tenure
Supreme Court as soon as practicable.
Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Section Article VIII. Section 11. The Members of the Supreme
15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to cases or Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office
matters filed before the ratification of this Constitution, when during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
the applicable period lapses after such ratification. years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
We all know that the 3 months [for lower courts], 12 months power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
[for lower collegiate courts], and the 24 months [for the dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
Supreme Court] are both mandatory and discretionary. actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the
Mandatory with respect to the justices or judges to which case and voted in thereon.
these periods are directed for them to resolve, issue, or Section 2. xxx
promulgate decisions on cases which are pending before them
subject to decision or resolution involving any incident , but it No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
is directory with respect to the validity of the order, decision, undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
or resolution itself. Meaning, if the decision, order, or
resolution is issued or promulgated beyond the said 90-day,
12-month, or 24-month periods, it shall not be considered as
d. Removal
invalid or unconstitutional. It is still valid provided they
complain with all the other requirements of the constitution,
and especially, the proper interpretation of the law. So, only See Article VIII. Section 11 above
justices and judges will be liable with respect to noncompliance
with the said periods to decide cases or resolve incidents
submitted to them for decision or resolution. e. Jurisdiction
Article VIII. Section 1. The judicial power shall be

Note: This part was not discussed. vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
2. LOWER COURTS may be established by law.
a. Qualifications and appointment Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
ARTICLE VIII (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT) legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
Section 7. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have f. Requirements as to Preparation of Decisions
been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
Article VIII. Section 15.
2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-
thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a
four months from date of submission for the Supreme
member of the Philippine Bar.
Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve
Section 8. months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months
for all other lower courts.
5. The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision
such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
may assign to it. memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the
court itself.
Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or
and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy
need no confirmation. thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and
served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a
For the lower courts, the President shall issued the decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued
appointment within ninety days from the submission of within said period.
the list.
Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period,
70 | P a g e
the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may legislative function but for purposes of representation in the
have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide JBC to, among others, read and provide for the list of
or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for nominees for vacancies in the judiciary, provide for vacancies
determination, without further delay. in the Ombudsman, and any other tasks which the Supreme
Court may require it to work on. So, the representative of
congress is not required to perform any legislative work.
Therefore, the practices before of providing one member for
g. Mandatory Period for Deciding each house is interpreted as unconstitutional.
See Art. VIII sec. 15 above

ARTICLE XVIII 4. Automatic Release of Appropriations for the
Judiciary
See secs. 12 and 13 above
Section 14. The provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4), Article VIII. Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal
Section 15 of Article VIII of this Constitution shall apply to autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced
cases or matters filed before the ratification of this by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
Constitution, when the applicable period lapses after such previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and
ratification. regularly released.
3. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL 5. Court Martial
Final item in Article 8 is the JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL. This case of Republic v. Asuncion on court martial, a 1994
ruling, please relate this to the case of Garcia v. Executive
Secretary. If you remember Major General Garcia, he was
ARTICLE VIII
charged before the court martial and one of the claims there is
Section 8. whether the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on service
applicable to a court martial. If you are "detained", will the
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the
days you spent in detention be deducted in the implemented
supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the
penalty after the trial has been had and a decision has been
Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
rendered? Are the provisions of the RPC applicable to the court
Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
martial? The question really is whether a court martial is a
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
[true] court under the Philippine judicial system? The Supreme
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Court said, based on the interpretation of the 1935
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private
Constitution, which has not changed up to this present
sector.
constitution, a court martial is in all sense a court in our legal
2. The regular members of the Council shall be system and it acts as a criminal court actually, so that if a
appointed by the President for a term of four years military officer is found guilty in a court martial, all applicable
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. rules in the RPC as to imposition of penalties as well as
Of the Members first appointed, the representative of penalties already rendered or served should be applicable
the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the because the decision of a court martial is a decision
professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for promulgated by a court in our constitution.
two years, and the representative of the private
sector for one year.
3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its
proceedings. Composition and Qualifications of Commissioners
4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such In composition, there is nothing much to it. COA and civil
emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme service three (3). Comelec seven (7)
Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
budget the appropriations for the Council. Qualification for public service, proven capacity for public
administration. You need to have a master's degree. It just
5. The Council shall have the principal function of says proven capacity.
recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the In COA and COMELEC, the practice of law has been the
Supreme Court may assign to it. subject of the case of Cayetano v. Monsod. It does not
require actual court room practice. You are not required to be
There is no new matter there except perhaps the case of trial lawyers. Any activity in or out of court which require a
Chavez and the case of Jardeleza v. Sereno. The case of member of the Philippine bar to use his legal expertise,
Chavez speaks of the composition where the Supreme Court knowledge, and skill at the very least is considered to have
explained that the word congress is supposed to be generic. It been engaged in the practice of law. So, even if you are just
does not refer to either or both the houses of the congress for reviewing documents because you have been employed by a
so far so long as there is a representative from either of the bank, pushing papers, reviewing pro forma documents, that is
houses representing the Congress, and explaining that that considered as practice of law because that requires you to use
there is a need for representation for the legislative branch of your legal knowledge, expertise, or skill at the very least.
government or ex-officio members i.e. Chief justice With respect to qualifications, it must have to be discussed in
representing the judiciary, secretary of justice representing the relation to disqualifications.
executive, and a member of congress [whether from the
Senate or House of Representatives] representing the Article IX-B Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any
legislative department. That is what is sought to be election, shall within one year after such election, be appointed
accomplished with respect to the composition of the JBC. The to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or
representative of the congress here is not to perform any
71 | P a g e
controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries. remainder of term. So if the vacancy in the office
of the chairperson is caused by these four, there
That is the limitation. One year. This only applies to those who might have been a remainder of term, there
have lost. For those who have won, there is no disqualification, could be an appointed to that position of
generally, under section 6 of article 9-B. chairperson by an incumbent sitting
commissioner.
However, for the commissions, there is specific extended
non disqualification (Not sure). No person can be appointed b. The second requirement is that the commissioner
to any of the commissions if they have been candidates for must resign in his position as such commissioner
any elective position in the elections immediately preceding the to be eligible for appointment as chairperson.
appointment. It does not distinguish between a winning c. Third, the total of tenure of that commissioner
candidate and a losing one, provided that if you are a who resigned and is seeking appointment as
candidate in the immediately preceding elections, you could chairperson (meaning, his term as commissioner
not be appointed in any commission until and after there has and the remainder of the term of the office of the
been another election, which would have interrupted your chairperson) shall not exceed 7 years. If that is
disqualification. Generally, if we follow the 3-year rule in so, then there could be an upgrading
elections, it is therefore longer than one year. Since this appointment.
coming october there is a barangay election, for example, you
are a candidate for the may 2016 election, of course you suffer In this case, the Supreme Court clarified what the constitution
from the disqualification and you cannot be appointed to any prohibits is reappointment. An upgrading appointment is not
position in the commission. But if there would be a barangay reappointment. A reappointment is when you are reappointed
election in october 2016, can you be appointed to any of the to the same position i.e. from commissioner to commissioner,
positions in november 2016 if you were not a candidate in the or from chairperson to chairperson. Here, it involves the sitting
october 2016 elections? Is the barangay elections sufficient to of a commissioner to the position of a chairperson, and so it
disrupt the specific extended non disqualification? It is an can be allowed.
election which is not immediately preceding an appointment.
3. Still in relation to this rotational plan to ensure the
Now, common to all the provisions is the discussion on the independence of the commissions is the RULE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS THAT ENSURE THE TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT OR DESIGNATION. No
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMISSION commissioner, even the position of chairperson, shall be
made by the president in a temporary capacity. The
We have discussed the last time the constitutional safeguards appointments are all supposed to be permanent. If the
that ensure the independence of the judiciary. What about the position of chairperson has been vacant, until the
constitutional commissions? president makes a permanent appointment, what the
1. The first is the so called ROTATION OR ROTATIONAL remaining commissioners would do is to designate from
PLAN. What is this rotational plan. In the past bar exam, among themselves who shall act as OIC in the office of
this was asked. The rotational plan is characterized as a the chairperson to be the acting chair until the president
device provided for in the constitution where no senior or appoints a chairperson in the temporary (sir said
present [member?] except those first appointed can temporary) capacity. The president therefore cannot make
appoint all the members of the commission. This is to that determination among the remaining commissioners as
ensure that the commission will be independent of the to who shall be the acting chairperson. It must have to be
appointing authority. Those who were first appointed shall permanent.
be appointed on staggered terms and those subsequently 4. Part of the constitutional safeguards is the NON
appointed shall be appointed for a full term of 7 years, so DIMINUTION OF SALARIES for members of the
that by reason of term of office alone, members of the commissions and AUTOMATIC RELEASE OF
commission "out term" that of the appointing authority APPROPRIATION just like the judiciary. However, the
because the President only serves for 6 years. It is going commissions do not enjoy the same constitutional
to be rotational because there will be at one given time safeguard applicable to the judiciary that their
that all 6 commissioners except again those who were first appropriations cannot be diminished from the previous
appointed who will not have been appointed by the same year appropriation. This is not applicable to the
appointing authority. They do not owe their appointment commissions because the expenditure of the commissions
to the same appointing authority. will not be the same in every given year. A good example
2. There is also no reappointments. It is quite clear that is the Comelec. In any election year, they would require a
previous rulings which seemingly allowed [reappointment] higher appropriation for expenses in the election. In non-
like the case of Nacionalista v. Bautista, NP v. Vera, election year, it is not reasonable that they be extended
and Republic v. Imperial, provided that the term of the same amount of appropriation. (Only 11% increase in
office during the previous appointment and the new the appropriation submitted by the Duterte administration.
appointment will not be more than the term of office. To There is, however, 10x increase in the budget of the
be fair, there is no reappointment allowed. What is Office of the President). Those of the constitutional
allowed, however, as provided in this case of Funa v. safeguards to ensure the independence of the
Villar, is what is known as the UPGRADING commissions.
APPOINTMENT. This was asked in the 2015 bar. (One bar
examinee answered ASCENDING APPOINTMENT. Sir said
that it is not the term which matters but the conditions SPECIFIC POWERS
and requisites. The examinee is now a lawyer.)
The CSC have authority over those who are in the civil service,
a. A sitting commissioner may resign from the which includes GOCCs with original charters. Those GOCCs
position as commissioner and be appointed as without original charter are covered by the Labor Code. The CS
the chairperson of that same commission, has both administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
provided that there be a remainder of term in the
With respect to Comelec, the Comelec has authority over all
chairperson's position by reason of death,
laws relating to the election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
incapacity, resignation, or impeachment. So, if
and recall. The Comelec also has administrative and quasi-
there is an end of term, obviously, there is no
judicial functions.
72 | P a g e
For COA, the Constitution has provided in legal terms that it them, and so there is now this spectacle on this Napoles
has the power to examine, audit, and settle all government scandal. Rule of thumb: where government money goes, there
accounts, including GOCCs with or without original charter. would be power of COA to conduct an audit.
There is a listing of its functions, including to prevent what it
With respect to the cases in your item on Comelec, all of these
would consider as non allowable expenditure. It has pre-audit
are on the discussion on which has authority, the HRET or the
and post-audit powers. Does it have quasi-judicial powers? At
Comelec. Meaning, what cases are supposed to be still within
most, it can determine whether the account or the expenditure
the jurisdiction of the Comelec and what cases would now fall
can be allowed in audit. That is the extent of it. It has powers
under the jurisdiction of the HRET? If you remember those
to notify or inform the public officer or the office involved in
cases we have discussed, specially the last case of Lokin v.
the disallowance, or even suspend accounts or payments. The
Comelec, if the candidate has already won or has been validly
rule is that if the object of the public funds enjoys fiscal
proclaimed, even if the term of his office has not yet started,
autonomy, it will only be subjected to post-audit procedure. All
jurisdiction is now technically with the electoral tribunal. If
the rest, pre-audit is a matter of procedure. Basic rule,
there is yet to be a valid proclamation, more so if there is a
regardless if it is a public or private entity, for so long as there
timely question on the validity of the proclamation, the
is government money or government funds that has reached
jurisdiction remains with the Comelec.
an individual or entity, that is subject to COA audit powers.
With respect to party lists, if it is the qualification of a party to
You have a case there in your outline, the case Funa v.
join the party list systems election, it is always with the
MECO, it will tell you of the history of the close diplomatic ties
Comelec. It does not matter. Any issue which has nothing to
of the Philippines with Taiwan. Because of the one china
do with the qualifications of a sitting nominee of a party
policy, our diplomatic relations with Taiwan has to be cut off,
joining the party list system, it will always be with the
and so we have no consular office in Taiwan. But because of
Comelec. Even if it is the qualification of a nominee but the
the reality that there are many Filipinos who work there and
nominee is not sitting, he is not a member of the house yet,
many Filipino tourists go there, there has to be a conduit office
and therefore, those questions will remain with the Comelec.
that will do "the consular tasks of a usual consular office of the
The reason for that is in relation to appeal.
Philippines". MECO was established as a corporate entity
where certain moneys or funds are received by it in relation to Where would appeal go? With respect to decisions of the CSC,
our diplomatic relations with Taiwan. So, the fees paid by the where will the appeal go? CA under Rule 43. Comelec?
employers there which are supposed to go to the POEA and Decisions on the exercise of its quasi-judicial power are
the DOLE in general are collected by MECO. Also, the visa fees appealable to the Supreme Court under Rule 64 in relation to
for those tourists are collected by MECO for the government Rule 65. Same thing with COA. But with respect to the
because, again, we do not have consular relations in Taiwan. decisions of electoral tribunal, where will it be reviewable? Still
Is MECO subject to the audit powers of COA? With respect to with the Supreme Court but under Rule 65, not Rule 64 in
the funds received by its in private capacity as a chartered relation to Rule 65. Remember that these are in the exercise of
entity, it is not subject to COA edit. With respect to those their quasi-judicial powers.
funds which are received by it for the government i.e.
employment and visa fees (which are government funds), they If these are in relation to their exercise of administrative
are subject to COA audit. powers or discharge of admin duties, decisions are not
appealable to the CA under Rule 43 or to the SC under Rule 64
There is a case (not found in the outline) which involves Boy in relation to Rule 65, as the case may be, but MAY BE
Scouts of the Philippines (BSP). Binay was asked to resign as appealable with the ordinary courts or the RTC. Example are
the national president of the BSP. It was argued that he was cases involving the CSC. A finding that an applicant has
using his position to further his personal ends. There was a cheated during the CS exam, the decision of the commission to
related case that was decided by the Supreme Court on perpetually disqualify that person from taking the CS exam
whether the funds of the BSP are subject to COA audit powers. cannot be appealed to the CA under Rule 43 but may be
Remember that before, "boy scouting" is mandatory and that appealed as ordinary cases or petitions with the RTC. Same
parents would have to pay for the so called scouting fee, and thing with quo warranto proceedings involving the Comelec. It
they are supposed to be turned over to the BSP, but times cannot be filed with the Supreme Court but with the RTC.
have changed, scouting is no longer mandatory. So, what is
the character of those funds? Are they subject to COA audit
powers? The Supreme Court had to go to the charter creating August 17 (CRemoroza)
the BSP. While it is privately connected, there is a
corresponding subsidy from the government. So, if there is VI. THE AMENDING PROCESS
again public funds or public moneys, even if commingled with
private funds or moneys, it is subject to COA audit with respect
A. Proposal
specifically to the public funds because where public money
goes, COA follows. In fact, the constitution under article 9-B Case- Gonzales vs Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)
section 3 mentions that there can be no law authorizing
exemption from COA audit powers. The law is, so long as there Article XVII
is public fund or money involved, that will be audited by COA.
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Article IX-D Section 3. No law shall be passed exempting Constitution may be proposed by:
any entity of the Government or its subsidiaries in any guise 1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all
whatever, or any investment of public funds, from the its Members; or
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit.
2. A constitutional convention.
It is for the same reason why the so called Napoles scheme or Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise
scandal has been discovered. If it were not for the power of be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
COA to go through and exercise its audit power on all a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
beneficiaries of government funds, this will not have been number of registered voters, of which every legislative
discovered. In paper, they were actually recorded to have district must be represented by at least three per centum
been received by NGOs. Unfortunately, these NGOs were of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
found out not to be legitimate, or not actually operating or section shall be authorized within five years following the
existing, and that there are no funds actually received by
73 | P a g e
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every Sec. 5. Requirements. (a) To exercise the
five years thereafter. power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per
centum (10%) of the total number of the
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
registered voters, of which every legislative
exercise of this right.
district is represented by at least three per
centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof,
We all know that there are 3 Methods of amending the shall sign a petition for the purpose and register
Constitution. There are 2 for proposing Revision. the same with the Commission.
Revision vs Amendment (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987

Constitution must have at least twelve per
centum (12%) of the total number of registered
Basic distinction between revision and amendment is the
voters as signatories, of which every legislative
type of change of the existing Constitution. If the
district must be represented by at least three per
presidential set up is maintained even if all the words are
centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
affected, that is just an amendment. But, if the basic
Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised
framework is changed like there are now proposing, the
only after five (5) years from the ratification of
French Model Federal System where there is
the 1987 Constitution and only once every five
parliamentary, it may be considered as a revision not a
(5) years thereafter.
mere amendment.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
1. BY CONGRESS
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought
to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
Art XVII, Sec. 1 (refer above) repealed, as the case may be;
Art XV (1935 Constitution) c.2.the proposition;
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
ARTICLE XV c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided
AMENDMENTS herein;
Section 1. The Congress in joint session c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered
assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the voters; and
Members of the Senate and of the House of c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than
Representatives voting separately, may propose one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly
amendments to this Constitution or call a written or printed at the top of every page of the
convention for that purpose. Such amendments petition.
shall be valid as part of this Constitution when (d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law,
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an resolution or ordinance passed by the legislative
election at which the amendments are submitted assembly of an autonomous region, province or
to the people for their ratification. city is deemed validly initiated if the petition
thereof is signed by at least ten per centum
Amendments by the Constitution can be had if (10%) of the registered voters in the province or
Congress constitutes itself as a Constituent city, of which every legislative district must be
Assembly by the required ¾ votes. represented by at least three per centum (3%) of
the registered voters therein; Provided, however,
2. By Constitutional Convention
That if the province or city is composed only of
one (1) legislative district, then at least each
Article XVII municipality in a province or each barangay in a
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two- city should be represented by at least three per
thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
convention, or by a majority vote of all its (e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance
Members, submit to the electorate the question passed in a municipality shall be deemed validly
of calling such a convention. initiated if the petition therefor is signed by at
least ten per centum (10%) of the registered
While it can also be a Constitutional convention voters in the municipality, of which every
to 2 methods barangay is represented by at least three per
1. Qualified 2/3 votes, congress promulgates centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
the law for a con-con, whereby they elect (f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay
the members of the Con-Con resolution or ordinance is deemed validly initiated
2. Simple Majority vote, there will be 2 if signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the
exercises registered voters in said barangay.
i. Throw the electorate the question Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or

on whether or not a con-con will be Referendum Proposition.
called and if so, (b) The proposition in an initiative on the
ii. Second electoral act of electing Constitution approved by a majority of the votes
members to the Con-Con cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to
the day of the plebiscite.
3. By the People through Initiatives
Article XVII Sec. 2 (refer above)

The third mode of electing members in proposing
RA. 6735 amendments is through an initiative.
74 | P a g e
1. In case amendments proposed by Congress or

SANTIAGO VS COMELEC Convention
Which has been considered to be ineffective because Article XVII

the initiative provision there requires a congressional
act, and republic act 6735 was found to be wanting. Section 4.Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Nonetheless, initiative cannot be used to propose Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
revisions only amendments. when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
The discussion now in the lower house is that they days nor later than ninety days after the approval of
will constitute themselves as Constituent Assembly. such amendment or revision.
The main argument is on the expense. So that if
there will be no election of members to the Con-con, The same, it would have to be 60-90 days period
there will be no more additional expense for such upon approval of the proposed amendments or
election. revisions.
Again, it has something to do with the inherent  With respect to Con-Ass, it is the Con-Ass which
distrust especially as to term limitations. In the past, would approve the amendments and thereby subject
any move to amend the constitution has not been it to a plebiscite.
successful because there’s always that fear that the
 If it is by Con-Con, once the Con-Con approves, it will
amendment though publicly claimed to include only a
have to call for the holding of the plebiscite.
few provision, in the past the economic provisions,
but even if that was the public disclosure , that the
term limitation will be affected. The president has
placed this proposal to amend the Constitution as one 2. In case of amendments proposed through
of the priority moves, I think he is just taking initiative
advantage of his popularity and the seeming super
majority of both houses. If it would be by Con Ass, Article XVII
we will just receive the approved proposed Section 4. (par 2) Any amendment under Section 2
amendments because any amendment proposed by a hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
Con-Ass, shall be up for electoral approval for a votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
plebiscite called within the period of 60-90 days from earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after
such approval. the certification by the Commission on Elections of
During the time of Speaker Nograles, there was one the sufficiency of the petition.
issue asked, though it was not raised eventually
because the proposal to amend did not push through. With respect to initiative, because there is yet to be a
The question was whether the voting was joint. No law, if we follow only the Constitutional Provision,
question that the session when Congress Constitutes there is just a requirement of the percentages as well
itself as a Con-Ass would be joint, but what about the as the holding of a plebiscite based on the
voting? Even the call to constitute itself as a Con-Ass certification of the Comelec on the sufficiency of the
requiring the qualified ¾ votes should that be ¾ vote certification of the proposed amendments under
in the House of the Senate or ¾ votes in the House initiative.
of Representatives or is it the entire Congress
3. Plebiscite to be called by Congress and
probably 305 members now, 281 from the Lower
supervised by COMELEC but the initiative on
house and 24 in the Senate, would it be ¾ of all
Consitution will be called by COMELEC
lumped up together.
Of course, all plebiscites must be under the auspices
We will have to see if this proposal to amend this
of supervision of the Comelec.
Con-Ass pushes through in this present
administration, and whether or not if it had to be
separate voting or joint voting. We said and as the
C. The theories regarding the position of
Constitution is silent, considering that the Congress is
Constitutional convention in our system of
a bicameral body, the vote of each house is
Government, in the Con-Ass in that matter
equivalent to each other, there should have to be a
separate voting if the Constitution is silent allowing a
joint voting. The only provision as we remember TOLENTINO vs COMELEC
allowing joint voting and joint session is under Section
18 Article VII, the Commander in Chief Powers Clause The theories are such that if it were to be Con-Ass, the
of the President. task of Congress to propose amendments or revisions to
the Constitution is not considered part of legislative
Article VII function. They perform the task to propose amendments
or revision as the representatives of the people as the
Section 18 constitution has allowed it. Meaning they are not
xxx The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at performing their tasks as members of Congress. So, their
least a majority of all its Members in regular or exercise of the power to propose amendment or revisions
special session, may revoke such proclamation or is delegated directly to them by the people because this is
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside part of the Constitution of Sovereignty in Amendments or
by the President. xxx Revision of the Constitution.
In the Constitutional Convention, the theories are:
B. Ratification 1. The Con-Con is subject to legislative control.

Because by Constitution, Congress would have to call
for the establishment if not composition, if not
75 | P a g e
creation of the Con-Con. By that, Congress will

provide by law, the conditions, qualifications, scope of
the power and therefore generally under that theory,
the Con-Con is subject to legislative control.
2. Conventional Sovereignty. Like a Constituent
Assembly, when the Con-Con exercises its duty, it is
directly taking its power from the Sovereign, or the
people in their Sovereign Capacity. Therefore it is not
subject to any control.
Co-Equality. The Con-Con is considered as Co-equal
with the rest of the branches of the government
especially the Courts so that if the question pertains
to the substantive matters with respect to
amendments or revisions, it is beyond the review of
the courts.
D. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDING PROCESS

The Con-Con cannot be limited as to what it intends to
change, the proposals of what are the amendments or
what are the revisions.
It can be however controlled by the courts if they go
beyond the procedural allowance under the Constitution.
So that there are requirements as to votes, there are
requirements as to qualifications perhaps, as to who can
be appointed/elected to the Con-Con, there are provisions
respecting the approval in the holding of the plebiscite.
If these procedural matters are not complied with or have
violated the terms of constitutional allowances, then under
this theory, SC may exercise judicial review over such
matter in the amending Process. Other than that, the
courts have no power to review.
Please take notice that there has been a change in the
phraseology:
 In the 35 constitution, the word election was used for
purposes of approving, or not approving the
proposals.
 In the 87, it has been changed to plebiscite.
Election pertains to persons, we choose candidates. In
plebiscite, we technically choose preferences as to the
proposed amendments as to the proposed amendments,
revision or legislation as the case may be.
So you have come across certain creation of LGU’s, and
they are supposed to be that proposal to create a new
LGU or a political subdivision is subject to a plebiscite not
an election. Because we choose preferences as to the
proposal and not to choose persons.
(END OF CONSTI 1)
76 | P a g e

Consti 1 TSN Rev Complete Long For Printing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 1 TSN Rev Complete Long For Printing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 1 TSN Rev Complete Long For Printing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 TRANSCRIPT

From the lectures of Atty. Vincent Paul Le. Montejo

congressional act, legislative act, or enabling law to make

In your understanding of what is a residual power, whatever is Chavez v. JBC

Hacienda Luisita v. PARC

Recognizing the fact that there were “foreigners” before who

Your case of:

said acts that he voluntarily and willingly announce

He ran. He was disqualified because his petition/application

Grace Poe is natural-born because: Under RA 9225, or repatriation in general, one

So, can a person with dual citizenship serve in government?

3) SC Justices; allowance for him to be able to properly discharge his

election. In the ordinary rules of domicile, we said that even if a

Cases not discussed:

b. All those parties who gained 2% of the votes cast for

That’s the reason why because of the 2009 ruling in Banat vs

 Duty to disclose under the law on 3019, you have to

the Intergenerational Responsibility. 2. To adjourn, if there is no quorum and to compel

would want a discretion or opinion as what to constitute as disorderly

admitted and pleaded guilty to possession, so he was

unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the

June 13. If the candidate has been proclaimed and

Congress [now] will not be allowed to do the identification of legislation.

(e) CALL SPECIAL ELECTION FOT PRESIDENT AND Do you understand?

Article VII Section 10 (g) APPROVE PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTY

Article XI Section 3 We normally follow what we know as the 3-3-3 rule. 3

guidelines as may be prescribed by law. citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual

institutions of higher learning. bureaus to determine the implementation of the specifics of

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY. TUA VS MANGROBANG

the parameters for this national security plan.

PRESIDENT’S VETO POWER.

The President’s salary cannot be increased nor decreased

The Constitution provides for an official residence. When US vs NIXON

5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated ART. VII, SEC. 17

allows the president to ensure that they have faithfully Authority

ART. IX(D), SEC. 1(2) – COMMISSION ON AUDIT ART. VIII, SEC. 9

3. A Representative of Congress. They have to choose

and special prosecutor removal from office of a Deputy Ombudsman, or a Special

Art. IX(C), Sec. 5 - COMELEC Q: Still on pardoning powers, when is a judgment of

b. Appointment and Qualifications We cannot permit the meaning of the Constitution to be

presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional

Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further

ARTICLE VIII RULE 56

Article VIII. Section 1. The judicial power shall be

See Art. VIII sec. 15 above

3. THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL 5. Court Martial

Revision vs Amendment (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987

i. Throw the electorate the question Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or

Article XVII Sec. 2 (refer above)

1. In case amendments proposed by Congress or

Which has been considered to be ineffective because Article XVII

In the Constitutional Convention, the theories are:

B. Ratification 1. The Con-Con is subject to legislative control.

creation of the Con-Con. By that, Congress will

D. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDING PROCESS

You might also like