You are on page 1of 81

Constitutional Law I

Case Gist Reviewer


(Atty. Jamons Consti1 case syllabus)
By: Dann Mercado
with notes from Cristian Saba

Part 1
Introduction

A. The Constitution as a Social Contract
-It is a handcuff to restrain the government from encroaching upon the
rights of the People, not the other way around. Atty. Antonio Jamon

-It is a balance between authority and liberty. Atty. Antonio Jamon

Constitutional Law it is the study of the maintenance of the proper
balance between the authority as represented by the three inherent
powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Constitution the document which serves as the fundamental law of the
state; that written instrument enacted by the direct action of the
government are established, limited and distributed among the several
departments for their safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body
politic.

B. How to read the Constitution

-Francisco v. House of Representatives
Principles of Constitutional Construction:
1. Verba Legis
- Wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given
their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are employed.
2. Ration Legis Est Anima
- The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with
the Intent of its framers.
3. Ut Magi Valeat Quam Pereat
- The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

C. A framework for constitutional litigation
Francisco v. House of Representatives
Essential Requisites for judicial review
1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;
2. The person challenging the act must have standing to challenge;
3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very list mota of the case.

Part II
Amendment of the Constitution

A. Amendments v. Revision
Amendments alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provision of
the Constitution

Revision reexamination of the entire Constitution or an important cluster
of provisions in the Constitution.

B. Proposal
1. By Congress as a constituent assembly
- Section 1 (1), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 1, Any Amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution may be proposed by:
1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members;

2. By Constitutional Convention
- Section 1 (2), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 1. Any Amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution
may be proposed by:
x x x
(2) A Constitutional Convention.

-Section 3, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 2. The Congress may, by a vote of two-third of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority
vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question
of calling such a convention.

-Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision, of this Constitution
under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held
not earlier than sixty days nor alter then ninety days after the
approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the certification by the Commission on Elections
of the Sufficiency of the Petition.



-Gonzales v. Comelec
-The Congresss power to propose amendments or revisions
to the Constitution is a constituent power emanating from the
People through the Constitution as they are the very
source of all powers of government, including the
Constitution itself.

- The plebiscite may be done either through special or
general election for the Constitution does not qualify. But
ideally it should be special so as to submit it to the people for
their approval independent of the election of public officials.

- The determination of conditions under which the proposed
amendments or revisions shall be submitted to the people is
concededly a matter which falls within the legislative sphere.

- The choice of which constituent assembly should initiate
amendments or revisions is a matter of wisdom left to the
discretion of Congress.

3. By the people thru intitiative
-Section 2, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
directly proposed by the People through initiative upon a
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represent by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five year following the ratification of this
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.

- Santiago v. Comelec
-The system of initiative on the Constitution under Sec. 2 of
Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory; thus, it
requires an enabling law. Also, it is confined to amendments
only, not revisions of the Constitution.

- Lambino v. Comelec
- In order for a petition to be a valid initiative, it must first
comply with the requirements of Sec. 2, Article XVII, of the
Constitution even before complying with R.A. 6735 (System
of Initiative and Referendum). It must also contain only one
(1) subject.

C. Submission
-Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra.

-Tolentino v. Comelec
-All amendments to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention
must be submitted to the people in a single election or plebiscite.

-In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the
Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only
the sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the
nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other
parts of the Constitution with which is has to form a harmonious
whole.

A proposal to amend the Constitution should be submitted to the
people not separately from but together with all the other
amendment to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention.

D. Ratification
-Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra.

Part III.
Judicial Review

A. Separation of Powers
-In Re: Wenceslao Laureta
-Judicial power is by no means a display of arrogance but a
restatement of the fundamental principle of separation of powers
and checks and balances under a republican form of government,
that the three co-equal branches of the government - executive,
legislative, and judicial are each supreme and independent within
the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with the
performance of the duties of the other.

-Demetria v. Alba
-Where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the
limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere
with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts
beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty
of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the
government had assumed to do, as void. This is the essence of
judicial power conferred by the Constitution in one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law.


- 7 Pillars of Judicial Restraint
a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
legislation unless it is the last resort, and is a necessity in the
determination of the important issues between individuals.

b. The Court will not decide questions of constitutionality
unless it is absolutely necessary to the case.

c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law
outside the context of the facts to which is it to be applied.

d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question if
there are some other grounds to which it can be decided.

e. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when a complainant fails to show that he is injured by
its operation.

f. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a
statute when the complainant has once benefited from it.

g. When the constitutionality of an act of the Congress is
drawn in question, the Court will first ascertain whether a
construction of the statue is possible of resolving it.

B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review
-Angara v. Electoral Commission
-The Constitution has rationally provided the Judiciary the power to
determine the nature, scope and extent of the powers of
government. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the
other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of
the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn an d sacred obligation
assigned to it be by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims
of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees them. This is judicial supremacy which properly is the
power of the judicial review under the Constitution.

C. Justiciable and Political Questions
-Miranda v. Aguirre
- Political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which
under the Constitution are to be decided by the people ion their
sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority
has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

-A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable
and enforceable, an act of omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by aw, for said breach of right.

-Francisco v. House of Representatives, Supra.
-There are two species of political questions: (1) truly political
questions and (2) not truly political questions. The former is
beyond judicial review, while the former is subject to the review of
the court.

-The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable
political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred
upon political bodies. If there are, the courts are duty-bound to
examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government
property acted within such limits.

D. Requisites of Judicial Review
1. Actual Case or Controversy
Prematurity:
-PACU v. Secretary of Education
-Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education
might under the law withdraw the permit of one of the
petitioners does not constitute a justiciable
controversy.

-Where the petitioning private schools are actually
operating by virtue of permits issued to them by the
Secretary of Education under a law, who is not show
to have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no
justiciable controversy that would authorize the courts
to pass upon the constitutionality of the law.

-Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein, however
intellectually solid the problem may be.

-Mariano v. Comelec
-The petition is premised on the occurrence of many
contingent events. Considering that these
contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners
merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to
ripen to an actual case or controversy.

-Montesclaros v. Comelec
-Petitioners prayer to prevent Congress from
enacting into law a proposed bill lowering
membership age in the SK does not present an actual
justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject
to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed
bill creates no rights and imposes no duty legally
enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no
legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty.
The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill
constitutional or unconstitutional because that would
be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a
proposed act of Congress.

-Mootness
-Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR
-The provisions that the petitioners are refuting are
now repealed and excluded from the coverage of
CARL. IN view of the foregoing, the question
concerning the constitutionality of the assailed
provisions has become moot and academic with the
passage of a new law which repealed the same.

-Lacson v. Perez
-All the petitions assailing the declaration of a state of
rebellion of PGM and the warrantless arrests
allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no
basis both in fact and in law. Significantly, PGMA
ordered the lifting of the declaration of a state of
rebellion in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the instant
petitioners have been rendered moot and academic.

-Exceptions to Mootness:
-Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
-As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases,
judicial power being limited to the determination of
actual controversies. Nevertheless, courts will
decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review.

-Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita
-As an exception to the rule of mootness, courts will
decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the
mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution.
The question of constitutionality of the Presidents
appointment of department secretaries in an acting
capacity while Congress is in session will arise in
every such appointment.

2. Proper Party
-Joya v. PCGG
-One having no rights or interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. The courts will
exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought
before by a party who has legal standing to raise the constitutional
or legal question.

-Legal standing means a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury
as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The
term interest is material interest, an interest in issue and to be
affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the
question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the
interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on
a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party.

-Agan v. Piatco
-The question on legal standing is whether such parties have
alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions. He must be able to
show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but
also that the sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some
direct injury as result of its enforcement, and not merely that he
suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the
person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or
privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that is about to be
subjected to some burdens or penalties bi reason of the statute or
act complained of.

-CHREA v. CHR
-A proper party is one who ahs sustained or is in immediate danger
of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.



-Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v. Romulo
-Even with the presence of an actual case or controvery, the
Supremen Court may refuse to exercise judicial review unless the
constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the
requisite standing to challenge it.

-For a citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has
suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be
redressed by a favorable action.

-A taxpayers suit is properly brought only when there is an exercise
of the spending or taxing power of Congress.

-Citizen Standing
-Tanada v. Tuvera
-The right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a
public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law
of the law. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this
proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any
other person to initiate the same, considering that the
Solicitor General, the government officer generally
empowered to represent the people, has entered his
appearance for respondents in the case.

-Chavez v. PEA
-In this case, the right of citizens to information on matters of
public concern and application of constitutional provision
intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable
lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens, are
enough to give rise to a citizens standing.

-Associational Standing
-KMU v. Labor Center
-The petitioner, whose members had suffered and continue
to suffer grave and irreparable injury and damage from the
implementation of the questioned memoranda, circulars
and/or orders, has shown that it has a clear legal right that
was violated and constitutes to be violated with the
enforcement of the challenged memoranda, circulars and/or
orders. KMU members, who avail the use of buses, trains,
and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected by the
burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares.
They are part of the millions of commuters who comprise the
riding public. Certainly, their rights must be protected, not
neglected or ignored.

-IBP v. Zamora
-The IBP primarily anchors its standing o its alleged
responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution.
Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no
other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere
invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law
and nothing more is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in
the case. This is too general an interest which is shared by
other groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the
standards above-stated; the BIP has failed to present a
specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case.

-It should also be noted that the interest of the National
President of IBP who signed the petition, is his alone, absent
a formal board resolution authorizing him to file the present
action. To be sure, members of the BAR those in the
judiciary included, have varying opinions on the issue.
Moreover, no injury sustained by them was shown. The
injury they were contending is presumed, not personal in
character, and is likewise too vague, highly speculative and
uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing.

-Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.
-A partys standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set
aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. The
court may brushed aside technicality when the issue is of
transcendental importance to the public,

-Executive Secretary v. CA
-An association has standing to complain of injuries of its
members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association
with that of its members. An association has standing to file
suit for its workers despite its lack of interest if its members
are affected by their action. An organization has standing to
assert the concerns of its constituents.

-Taxpayers Standing
-ITF v Comelec
-Taxpayers are allow to sue when there is a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds, or if public money is being
deflected to any improper purpose; or when petitioners
seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
law.

-Voters Standing
-Tolentino v. Comelec
-In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the petitioners
assert a harm classified as a generalized grievance. This
generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal
measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who
voted in that election.

-The court may relax the requirement on standing and
exercised their discretion to give due course to voters suit
involving right of suffrage.

-Legislative Standing
-Ople v. Torres
-The petitioner, as senator, is possessed of the requisite
standing to bring suit raising the issue that the there is a
usurpation of legislative power.


-Governmental Standing
-People v. Vera
-The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have
a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he
has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act. 4221 really
violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in
whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial
interest in having it set aside. OF greater import than the
damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is
the mortal wound inflicted upon eh fundamental law by the
enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled
rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.

-Facial Challenge
-Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
-A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute
and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling
effect: upon protected speech. It can only be invoked against
that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e.,
that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by
construction.

-Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting
from the very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for
this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from
enacting laws against socially harmful l conducts. In the area
of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of
free speech. The over breadth and vagueness doctrines
then have a special application only to free speech cases.

3. Earliest Opporunity
-Umali v. Guingona
-As regards the issue of constitutionality of PCAGC, it was only
posed by the petitioner in his motion of reconsideration before the
RTC of Makati. It was certainly too late to raise the said issue for
the first time at such late stage of the proceedings below.

4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions
Arceta v. Mangrobang

Part IV
The Three Branches of the Government

A. Congress
1. Composition, Qualification and Term of Office
a. Senate
Sec. 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum.

Sec . 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators
who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.

Sec. 3. No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-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 registered voter,
and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years
immediately preceding the day of election.

Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and
shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election.

No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was elected.



b. House of Representatives
Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundrede and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed
by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on
the basis of a uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) 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 ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, your, and such other sectors as may be
provided by aw, except the religious sector.

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a
population of at least two-hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative.

(4) Within three years following the return of ever census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.

Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age,
able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a
registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preceding the day of the elections.

-Macias v. Comelec
-An act that gives provinces with less number of inhabitants
more representative districts than those with bigger population is
declared invalid because it violations the principle of proportional
representation prescribed by the Constitution.

-Tan v. Comelec
-A plebiscite must be conducted in both parent province and
mother province that are affected.


-Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec
- The 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned
in Section 5(2), Article VI is not mandatory but merely a
ceiling. The 2% threshold and three-seat limit is
constitutional

Formula on how to determine the additional seats:
1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list
representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total
membership of the HR, including those under the party-list.

2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total
votes cast for party-list are qualified to have a seat.

3. three-seat limit additional seats shall be computed in
proportion to their total number of votes.

4. proportional representation
-Bagong Bayani v. Comelec
-Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants

1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition
must represent the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.

2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly
allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the
party-list system, they must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be
elected to the House of Representatives."

3. Third, religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system.

4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified
under Section 6 of RA 7941.

5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of,
or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the
government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the
party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized
by citizens and operated by citizens.

6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so.

7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must
represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so
also must its nominees.

8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political constituency,
the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the
formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole.

-Aquino v. Comelec
-The candidate must prove that he has established not just
residence but domicile of choice.

-Clearly, the place where a party actually or constructively
has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he
maybe found at any given time, eventually intends to return
and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the
purposes of election law. The manifest purpose of this
deviation is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar
with the conditions and needs of the community from taking
advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that
community for electoral gain.

-While there is nothing wrong with the practice of
establishing residence in an area for meeting election law
requirements, this nonetheless defeats the essence of
representation, which is to place through he assent of voters
those most cognizant and sensitive to the need of a
particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of
residency mandated by law for him to qualify. That purpose
could be obviously best me by individuals who have either
had actual resident in the are for a given period or who have
been domiciled in the same area either by origin or choice.

-Property ownership is not and should never be indicia of the
right to vote or to be voted upon.

-The absence of clear and positive proof showing a
successful abandonment of domicile under the conditions
stated above, the lack of identification sentimental, actual,
or otherwise with the area, and the suspicious
circumstances under which the lease agreement was
effected belies claim of residency for the period required by
the Constitution.

-Marcos v. Comelec
-Concept of domicile to mean an individuals permanent
home , a place to which, whenever absent for business or
for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts
and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.

-Domicile includes the twin elements of the fact of residing
or physical presence in a fixed place and animus manendi,
or intention of returning there permanently.

-Residence, it its ordinary conception, implies the factual
relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the
physical presence of a person in a given area, community, or
country. The essential distinction between residence and
domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his
abode ends. If a persons intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose it I is
residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual
to have different residence in various paces, However, a
person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various
reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
another domicile of choice.

-Torayno v. Comelec
-In requiring candidates to have a minimum period of
residence in the area in which they seek to be elected, the
Constitution or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a
stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and
need sof a community and not identified with the latter from
[seeking] an elective office to serve that community.

-Such provision is aimed at excluding outsiders from taking
advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that
community for electoral gain. Establishing residence in a
community merely to meet an election law requirement
defeat the purpose of representation: to elect through the
assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the
needs of the community. This purpose is best met by
individuals who have either had actual residence in the are
for a given period or who have been domiciled in the same
are either by origin or by choice.

-The residence requirement is rooted in the desire that
officials of districts or localities be acquainted not only with
the metes and bounds of their constituencies but, more
important, with eh constituents themselves their needs,
difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and
development, and all matters vital to their common welfare,
The requisite period would give candidates the opportunity to
be familiar with their desired constituencies, and likewise for
the electorate to evaluate the formers qualifications and
fitness for the offices they seek.

-Banat v. Comelec
-The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a
ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of
the Members of HR. The continued operation of the 2%
threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates
the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
members of the HR shall consist of party-list representatives.

2. Election
a. Regular Election
Sec. 8 . Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of
the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives
shall be held on the second Monday of May.

b. Special Election

3. Organizations and Sessions

Sec. 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective
members.

Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem
necessary.

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and
may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner,
and under such penalties, as such House may provide.

(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of
two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A
penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from
time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nay on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal.

(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall,
without the consent of the other, adjourn for more three days, nor to
any other place than that in which the two House shall be sitting.


a. Election of Officers
Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.
-The term majority has been judicially defined a number of
times. When referring to a certain number out of a total or
aggregate, it simply means the number greater than half or
more than half of any total. The plain and unambiguous
words of the subject constitutional clause simple mean that
the Senate President must obtain the votes of more than one
half of all the senators. Not by any construal does it thereby
delineate who comprise the majority, much less the
minority, in the said body. And there is not showing that the
framers of our Constitution had in mind other than the usual
meaning of these terms.

-Majority may also refer to the group, party, or faction with
the larger number of votes, not necessarily more than one
half. This is sometimes referred to as plurality. In contrast,
minority is a group, party, or faction with a smaller number
of votes or adherents than the majority. Between two
unequal parts or numbers compresigina whole or totality, the
greater number would obviously be the majority, while the
lesser would be minority.

-In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President
of the Senate must be elected by a number of constituting
more than one half of all the members thereof, it does not
provide that the members who willl not vote for him shall ipso
facto constitute minority, who could thereby elect the
minority leader, Verily, no law or regulation states that the
defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority
leader.

-While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a
Senate President and A House Speaker, it is, however, dead
silent on the manner of selecting the other officers in both
chambers of Congress. All that the Charter says us that
[e]ach house shall choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary. The method of choosing who will be such
other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional
provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the
Senate itself, not by this Court.

b. Quorum
-Avelino v. Cuenco
- When the Constitution declares that a majority of each
house shall constitute a quorum, the House does not
mean all the members. Even a majority of all the members
constitute the House. There is a difference between a
majority of all members of the Zhouse and a majority of
the House, the latter requiring less number than the first.
Therefore, an absolute majority (13) of all the members of
the Senate (24), constitutes constitutional majority of the
Senate for the purpose of quorum.

c. Rules of Proceeding
-Pacete v. Commission on Appointments
-The courts may acquire jurisdiction over the rules of
proceedings of the CA. The courts are called upon to see it
that private rights are not invaded. This even legislative acts
and executive orders are not beyond the pale of judicial
scrutiny. Certainly, there is nothing sacrosanct about a rule
of the CA, especially so, when as in this case, a construction
sought to be fastened on it would defeat the right of an
individual to a public office. It certainly can be inquired into in
an appropriate case, although the utmost deference should
be paid to the interpretation accorded it by the Commission
on Appointments itself.


-Arroyo v. De Venecia
-What had been violated in the enactment of the law are
merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. In
enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its
own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a
violation of constitutional provision or the rights of private
individuals, denies the courts the power to inquire into such
allegations.

- Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing by the Speaker
and the President of the Senate and the certification of
secretaries by both Houses of Congress are conclusive of its
due enactment.


d. Discipline of Members
-Alejandrino v. Quezon
-Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish
its members for disorderly behavior does not authorize it to
suspend an appointive member from the exercise of his
office for one year, conceding what has been so well state
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceding all this
and more, yet the writ prayed for cannot issue, for all-
conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does not possess
the power of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take
any particular action.

-The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction by mandamus to
restrain or control action by the Philippine Legislature or a
branch thereof.

-Osmena v. Pendatun
-The House of Repreesntatives is the judge of what
constitutes orderly behaviour. The courts will not assume a
jurisdiction in any case which will amount to an interference
by the judicial department with the legislature.

-The House of Representative is the judge of what
constitutes orderly behavior, not only because the
Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also
because the matter depends mainly on factual
circumstances of which the House\ knows best but which
can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to,
and adjudication by the Courts.

-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
-The order of suspension prescribed by R.A. 3019 is distinct
from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under
the Constitution.

-The suspension contemplated in the Constitution is punitive
measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate
or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, upon
an erring member.

-The suspension of R.A. 3019 is not a penalty but a
preliminary, preventive measure, presiding from the fact that
the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior
as a Member of the House of Representatives.

e. Journal and Record


Part IV
The Three Branches of Government

A. Congress (Taken from Christian Sabas Notes)

A1. Composition, Qualification and Term of Office
a. Senate
b. House of Representatives

Macias v. COMELEC
The apportionment of the Members of the House of Representatives is not valid
because it is not based on the number of inhabitants a province has.

Tan v. COMELEC
BP 885 An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as
Province of Negros Del Norte is unconstitutional. The plebiscite was not legal.
Whenever a province xxx is created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary
substantially altered, xxx the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the political units directly affected
1
must first be obtained.

Veterans Fed. Party v. COMELEC
The 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5(2),
Article VI is not mandatory but merely a ceiling. The 2% threshold and three-seat
limit is constitutional
Formula on how to determine the additional seats:
1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list representatives
shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HR, including those under
the party-list.
2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total votes cast
for party-list are qualified to have a seat.

1
Section 10, Article 10, 1987 Constitution.
3. three-seat limit additional seats shall be computed in proportion to
their total number of votes.
4. proportional representation

Bagong Bayani v. COMLEC
Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941.
2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941
and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with
the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of
Representatives."
3. Third, religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system.
4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of
RA 7941.
5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature
of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens,
organized by citizens and operated by citizens.
6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its
nominees must likewise do so.
7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees.
8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must
likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Aquino v. COMELEC
Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile,
petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; bona
fide intentions of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC
In political law, domicile and residence are synonymous. An individual does not
lose his domicile even if she has lived and maintained residence in different
places. Minor follows the domicile of her parents. As domicile, once acquired is
retained until a new one is gained.

Torayno v. COMELEC
Emano, having been the governor of Misamis Oriental for three terms and
consequently residing in CDO, could not be said to be a stranger or newcomer to
the city in the last year of his third term when he decided to adopt it as hi
permanent place of residence.

BANAT v. COMELEC
The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more than 20% of the Members of HR.
The continued operation of the 2% threshold in the distribution of the additional
seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members
of the HR shall consist of party-list representatives.

A2. Election
a. Regular Election- Section 8, Article VI
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators
and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
b. Special Election- Section 9, Article VI
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a
special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by
law
2
, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected
shall serve only for the unexpired term.

A3. Organizations and Sessions
a. Election of Officers- Section 16 (1), Article VI
The Senate shall its President and the House of Representatives its
Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

Santiago v. Guingona
Petitioners held that majority is the group who voted for winning Senate
President and accepted committee chairmanships. Whereas, the minority is the
group who voted for the losing candidate for Senate Presidents and accepted no
such chairmanships.

The Supreme Court held that majority is the political party to which most number
of lawmakers belonged (concept of plurality). The Constitution is silent as
regards the manner of electing officers other than the Senate President and the
House Speaker. Hence, it is within the province of the Legislative, not the
Supreme Court, as conferred by the Constitution.

b. Quorum- Art VI Sec 16(2):
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties,
as such House may provide.

Avelino v. Cuenco
Quorum any number sufficient to transact business, which may be less than
the majority of the membership

2
Republic Act 7166
The base for computing the majority of the legislative body for the purpose of
determining the existence of a quorum should normally be the total membership
of the body, although it will be noted that in the case Avelino v. Cuenco the base
used was twenty-three and not twenty-four, which was the total membership of
the Senate.

c. Rules of Proceeding- Art VI Sec 16(3)
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds
of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension,
when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

Pacete v. Commission on Appointments
The filing of a motion for reconsideration did not have an effect of automatically
removing him from the position because there was still a need for the motion to
be duly approved by the majority of members present.
Arroyo v. De Venecia
Legislative Act will not be declared invalid for non-compliance with internal rules.
d. Discipline of Members- Art VI Sec 16(3)
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds
of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension,
when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

Alejandrino v. Quezon
Where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have no
power, irrespective of whether or not the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a
mandate to compel his reinstatement.
Osmena v. Penatun
For unparliamentary conduct, members of Congress could be censured,
committed to prison, suspended, or even expelled by the votes of their
colleagues.
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
The doctrine of separation of powers does not exclude members of Congress
from the mandate of R.A. 3019. The order of suspension prescribed by RA 3019
is distinct from the powers of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the
Constitution.

e. Journal and Record- Art VI Sec 16(4)
Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time
publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect
national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

Journal- An abbreviated account of the daily proceedings
Record word for word transcript of the daily proceedings
e1. The Enrolled Bill Theory
An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the
certifications of both the presiding officers of each House. A duly authenticated
bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts.
CASCO v. Gimenez
Since the enrolled bill is binding upon the courts, if there is an error in the printed
bill, the proper remedy is through amendment and curative legislature, and not
through judicial decree.

e2. Probative Value of the Journal
US v. Pons
The Court could not look beyond the journal to determine the actual date of the
passage of a bill, as it is an official act of the legislature. As such, it is superior to
the recollections or memories of witnesses. To go beyond the journal would be to
violate the letter and spirit of the official act, to encroach upon the authority of a
coordinate and independent department, and to interfere with the powers of the
legislature.

e3. Matters to be entered in the Journal
*Yeas and nays of the final reading of the bill.
*Veto message of the President.
*Yeas and nays on repassing the bill vetoed by the President.
* Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the Members present.

e4. Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory
Except only where the matters are required to be entered in the journal, the
contents of the enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journal.

e5. Congressional Record- Article VI, Section 16(4)
Each House shall keep a record of its proceedings.

f. Session
1. Regular Session- convenes once every year at the 4
th
Monday of July.
Continues to be in session until 30 days before the start of its next regular
session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. (Article VI, Section
15)
2. Special Session- Called by the President at any time when Congress is
not in session.

Special Session which need not be called by the President:
*To pass a bill calling a special election in case of vacancy in the offices of the
President and Vice- President.
*To determine by two-third votes of both Houses, voting separately, whether the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
*To extend or revoke the existence of martial law or suspension of habeas
corpus.
3. Joint Sessions
Voting Separately
*Choosing the President in case two or more shall have an equal and highest
number of votes (Art. VII, Sec. 4)
*Determining the Presidents temporary disability (Art. VII, Section 11, par.4)
*Declaring a state of war (Art. VI, Sec. 23, par.1)
*Amending the Constitution (Art. XVII, Sec. 1, par. 1)

Voting Jointly
*To extend or revoke martial law or suspension of habeas corpus (Art. VII, Sec.
18)

A4. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications
a. Salaries- Article VI, Section 10
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after
the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.

Philconsa v. Mathay
The increased compensation provided by RA 4134 is not operative until
December 30, 1969 when the full term of all members of Congress that approved
it on June 20, 1964 will have expired.

Ligot v. Mathay
Reiterated the ruling in Philconsa v. Mathay. Also cited Philconsa v. Jimenez
where te Court held that RA 3836 is null and void because it took effect upon
approval without awaiting the expiration of the full term of all the members of
Congress approving such increase.
b. Freedom from Arrest- Article VI, Sec. 11
A Senator or member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session.

Note: Immunity applies for as long as Congress is in session, whether or not the
legislator involved is actually attending it. Session as here used does not refer
to the day-to-day meetings of the legislature but to the entire period from its initial
convening until its final adjournment.

People v. Jalosjos
Immunity from arrest is not enjoyed by one who has been convicted. Rape is
punishable by more than six years imprisonment; hence immunity from arrest
cannot be invoked.

c. Speech and Debate clause- Article VI, Sec.11
xxx No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
speech or debate in the Congress r in any committee thereof.

Jimenez v. Cabangbang
Speech or debate used in Article VI, Section 15 (now 11) of the Constitution
refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official
functions while Congress is in session. The open letter to the President was
made by Cabangbang when Congress was not in session. And in causing the
communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty xxx as
a member of Congress. Hence, the communication is not absolutely privileged.

d. Disqualifications- Article VI, Section 13; Article VI, Sec. 14
Article VI, Section 13
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or 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 which he was elected.

Incompatible Office office that cannot be held by the legislator during his term
in Congress, to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government
Forbidden Office any office in the government that has been created or the
emoluments thereof have been increased during the legislators term, to prevent
trafficking in public office



Adaza v. Pacana
The law is clear and unambiguous. Adaza cannot exercise and discharge the
functions of both Congressman and Governor simultaneously as the offices are
incompatible.

Article VI, Sec. 14
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear
as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its
subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before
any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
upon to act on account of his office.
Puyat v. De Guzman
By virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said
to be appearing as counsel but theoretically for the protection of hi ownership of
shares in respect of the matter in litigation. However, under the facts and
circumstances immediately preceding and following his purchase of the shares,
we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect appearance as
counsel before an administrative body (SEC).

e. Duty to disclose- Article VI, Section 12
All Members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest
that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors.

A5. Electoral Tribunals- Article VII, Section 17
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal
shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
who shall be CHOSEN on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribnal shall be its
Chairman.

Abbas v. SET
By providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members
of Congress, the Constitution intended that both those judicial and legislative
components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
The Electoral Tribunal cannot function as such, absent its entire membership of
Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the Three-Justice
Members alone the power of valid jurisdiction of a senatorial election contest.

Bondoc v. Pineda
Camasuras expulsion from the Tribunal is a clear impairment of the Tribunals
prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests.

Codilla v. De Venecia
The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be
proclaimed winner in the case the winning candidate is disqualified.
It is the HRET which has no jurisdiction. The issue on the validity of the
COMELEC Second Division Resolution has not yet been resolved by the
COMELEC en banc.

Pimentel v. HRET
The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives who may
occupy the seats in the HRET and CA. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI,
party-list representatives must first show to the House that they possess the
required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in HRET and CA. Only if the
House fails to comply with this directive can the party-list representatives resort
to this Court. The instant petitions are bereft of any allegation that respondents
prevented the party-list groups in the House from participating I the election of
members of HRET and CA.

A6. Commission on Appointments- Article VI, Section 18
There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the
House of Representatives, ELECTED by each House on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on
all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from
their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
Members.

Daza v. Singson
The House of Representatives has the authority to change its representation in
the Commission of Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may
transpire in the political alignments of its membership. Such changes must be
permanent and must not include temporary alliances or factional divisions not
involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation.

Coseteng v. Mitra
Since the total membership of the House of Representatives was 202, to be
entitled to a seat in the Commission, a party must have 16.8 members in the
House or 3.4% of the total membership. KAIBA was obviously short of the
required number even if Coseteng had the support of members not belonging to
her party.

Guingona v. Gonzales
The constitutional rule on proportional representation in the Commission on
Appointments is violated when LDP converted the fractional membership into
a whole. In so doing, one other partys fractional membership is made greater
while the other suffers diminution of its rightful membership. The provision of
Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not
leave any discretion to the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on
proportional representation. No party can claim more than what is entitled.

A7. Powers of Congress
a. General Plenary Powers- any power that is deemed to be legislative is
necessarily possessed by Congress, UNLESS the Constitution has vested it
elsewhere. (Ex. Legislative power was also given to the people through exercise
of initiative and referendum)
b. Limitations on the Legislative Power
No power to pass irreppealable law.
Non-encroachment on powers of other departments
Non-delegability of powers
o Agencies should merely execute laws, not make them.
o Only the legislative department can enact laws with the
exception of local governments, which may be allowed to
legislate on purely local matters.
1. Substantive limitations- Circumscribe both the exercise of the
power itself and the allowable subject of legislation which are chiefly
found in the Bill of Rights
2. Procedural limitations- prescribing the manner of passing bills and
the form they should take.

A8. Legislative Process
A8a. Requirements as to bills.
a1. As to title of bills- Article VI, Sec 26 (1)
Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.

Two limitations on legislative power under Sec. 26 (1)
First, Congress shouldnt conglomerate on heterogeneous subjects in one
statute. Second, the title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to
notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the
single subject thereof.

Purpose of one title-one subject rule:
*To prevent hodge-podge or log rolling legislation.
*To prevent surprise or fraud upon legislature.
*To fairly apprise the people.

Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board
The constitutional requirement on the title of bills is sufficiently complied with if
the title were comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a
statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every
end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The requirement is satisfied if all the
parts of the statute are related and are germane to the subject matter expressed
in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general
subject and title.

Lidasan v. Comelec
Statute was declared unconstitutional because the title did not inform the
legislature of persons interested as to the full impact of the law.

Initiative- It is the reserved power of the people to directly propose and enact
laws at polls called for the purpose independently of Congress or of a local
legislative body.

Referendum- It is the process by which any act or law or part thereof passed by
Congress or by a local legislative body is submitted to the people for their
approval or disapproval.

R.A 6735 (System of Initiative and Referendum)

Sec. 32, Article VI- 10% of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.

Sec. 1, Article XVII- 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.

Dela Cruz v. Paras
Ordinances by virtue of the general welfare clause must be reasonable, in
consonance with the laws and public policy of the state. Such sweeping exercise
of lawmaking power is unreasonable. It is a clear invasion of personal and
property rights.
Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs but it can
regulate such.

Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject
separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized
city. It is natural and logical consequence of its conversion.

a2. Requirements as to certain laws
a2.1. Appropriation laws
Article VII, Section 22
The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from opening of
every regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of
expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures.

Article VI, Section 24
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public
debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.

Article VI, Section 25
(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The
form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by
law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations
bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriations therein. Any
such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation
to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly
follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended,
and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein..
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however,
the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only
for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the
general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations
law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by Congress.

Article VI, Section 29
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to
any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as
a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. I f the purpose for which a
special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any,
shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.

Appropriation is an authorization made by law or other legislative enactment,
directing payment out of government funds under specified conditions and/or for
specified purposes.
Appropriation bill is one the primary and specific aim of which is to make
appropriations of money from the public treasury.
Revenue Bill is one the primary and specific purpose of which is to raise revenue.

Demetria v. Alba
Paragraph 1 of PD 1177 is unconstitutional. It overextends the privilege granted
under Sec. 25 (5), Article VI. It empowers the President to indiscriminately
transfer funds from one department xxx or agency of the Executive department to
any program xxx of any department xxx included in the General Appropriations
Act xxx without regards as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are
actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken.

Augmentation Power- the power of the heads of the department to reallocate
funds taken from their savings and which must be provided by law.

Guingona v. Carague
Although the Congress is mandated to assign the highest priority to education, it
does not deprive Congress of the power to respond to the imperatives of the
national interest. They are vested with the power to reasonably service our debt
to protect the credit standing of our country and our economy.
The automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget is not violative of
Art. VI, Sec. 29(1). Our Constitution does not require a definite, certain, or
specific appropriations made by law. Our Constitution simply states that money
paid out of the treasury must be made pursuant to an appropriation made by law.

Philconsa v. Enriquez
The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries with it the power to
specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law, but it is
still the executive that implements the project or activity specified to be funded.
The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign the highest
budgetary priority to education is merely directory.
Any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which extends in its
operation beyond an item of appropriation, is considered an inappropriate
provision which can be vetoed separately from an item.
The President can veto inappropriate provisions separately from other provisions.

Note: A Congressman cannot realign appropriation by himself. He has to get the
approval of the Speaker.

As a general rule, the President may not veto a bill in part and approve it in part.
The exception is provided in paragraph 2, Section 27 (line-veto power or item-
veto power
3
of the President).
Art VI Section 27(2) - The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but veto
shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

3
can be applied only in appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill.
Note: The present Constitution only states item-veto but nothing specifies
provision veto. However, jurisprudence (Gonzales v Macaraig and
PHILCONSA v Enriquez) tackles the question on provision veto, which
actually was expressly provided in the 1935 Constitution.)

Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision- The authority of the President to decide
whether or not certain provision in a bill is constitutional.

a2.2. Tax laws
Article VI, Section 28
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff
rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence
of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

Power to tax, like police power and power of eminent domain, is an inherent
power of the government. It need not be stated by the Constitution. Section 28 is
not a grant of power but an enumeration of limits on taxing power.

Power to tax can only be exercised for public purpose.

Delegated tax legislation
Article VI, Sec. 28 (2) supra.
Article X, Sec. 5- Each local government unit shall have the power to create its
own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic
policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively
to the local governments.

Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or
tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, bills of local application,
and private bills must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that
they are more sensitive to the local needs and problems. The Constitution does
not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt
of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld
pending the receipt of the House bill.

Because the Senate bill was a mere amendment of the Hose Bill, it does not
have to pass second and third reading. More so, it was certified by the President
as urgent. The certification of the president dispensed with the requirement not
only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days.
4



Lung Center v. Q.C
Lung Center should not be exempted from real property taxes. It failed to prove
that the entire property is actually, directly, and exclusively used for charitable
purposes. Only those portions of the hospital used for the patients are exempted.
The lease portions for commercial use are not exempt from tax.

Tan v. Del Rosario
Uniformity of taxation simply means that: 1) The standards that are used are
substantial and not arbitrary; 2) Categorization is germane to achieve the
legislative purpose; 3) The law applies, all things being equal, to both present
and future conditions; and 4) Classification applies equally well to all those
belonging to the same class.

Garcia v. Executive Secretary
Generally, power of taxation is exclusive to Congress. Congress cannot delegate
powers to others. Exceptions: Section 28(2) of Article VI, and Section 5 of Article
X.

John Hay v. Lim
Tax exemption grant is unconstitutional. Incentives under R.A. 7227 are
exclusive to the Subic Special Economic Zone. More importantly, under Section
28 (4) Article VI, only the Legislature can, through a concurrence of a majority of
all its members, grant tax exemptions.

a2.3. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article VI, Sec. 30
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.

Fabian v. Desierto
Section 27 of RA 6770 which provides for appeals in administrative disciplinary
cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the SC is not valid. Appeals from
judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be

4
Article VI, Section 26 (2). No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered
in the Journal.
brought to the CA on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and
conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for
a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.

A8b. Procedure for the passage of bills
(a) The Secretary reports for the first reading, which consists of reading the
number and title of the bill, followed by its referral to the appropriate Committee
for study and recommendation.
(b) Second Reading: The bill shall be read in full with the amendments proposed
by the Committee, if any, unless copies thereof are distributed and such reading
is dispensed with. After the amendments, the bill will be voted on second
reading.
(c) Third Reading: The bill approved on second reading will be submitted for final
votes by yeas and nays. No amendments may be introduced.
(d) The bill approved on the third reading by one house is transmitted to the other
House for concurrence, which will follow the same procedures as a bill originally
filed with it.
(e) If the other House introduces amendments and the House from which it
originated does not agree with said amendments, the differences will be settled
by the Conference Committee of both chambers, whose report or
recommendation thereon will have to be approved by both Houses in order that it
will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President for
action.
(f) If the President shall it, and if after such consideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and
if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law.

Gonzales v. Macaraig
Veto is valid where the item in the Appropriations bill is deemed inappropriate
pursuant to Article VI Sec 25 (2). Section 55 and Section 16 were deemed
inappropriate and are thus validly subject to veto for the following reasons: (1)
does not relate to any particular appropriation but applies more to a general
policy in respect to augmentation from savings; and, (2) it is repugnant to Article
VI, Section 25(5), impairing the authority of the President and other officials to
augment any item from savings xxx.

Bengzon v. Drilon
The President exceeded her item-veto power accorded by the Constitution
[Article VI, Sec. 27 (2)]. The power to disapprove any item or items in an
appropriation bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to
approve the remaining portion. In this case, portions of an item have been
chopped up into vetoed and unvetoed parts. Moreover, the vetoed portions are
not items. They are provisions.

Mardo v. Miller
Aproposed bill does not become a law upon legislative inaction or adjournment of
Congress.

A8c. Effectivity of Laws
Tanada v. Tuvera
Publication is indispensable for the validity of laws.

Article 2 of the Civil Code- "Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." (As
amended by EO 200)

unless otherwise provided by law refers to the date of effectivity.

What laws need to be published in Official Gazette or newspaper of general
circulation?
*Laws of General Applicability
*Important Laws
Judicial Notice- A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to
recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by
persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting
evidence in a civil or criminal action.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987 PROVIDING FOR THE
PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A
REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY
A8d. Question Hour- Article VI, Section 22The heads of departments may upon
their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of
either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments.xxx
The provision is permissive.
President may or may not consent to appearance, may require that appearance
to be in executive session.
Congress may refuse initiative by department secretary.
Section 22 establishes the rule for exercise of oversight function.
Oversight Function- enables Congress how passed laws are implemented.
Congress evaluates the law whether it needs amendment or another law.
Exemption from summons apply only to Department heads and not everyone in
Cabinet.
A8e. Legislative Investigation- Article VI, Section 21
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules
of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in affected by such inquiries shall
be respected.

Legislative investigation is the power to make investigation and exact testimony
to exercise legislative functions advisedly and effectively.

Arnault v. Nazareno
Senate has the authority to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question
pertinent to a legislative inquiry, to compel him to give information- COERCIVE
POWER.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a
legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a
witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his
constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Senate has authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of
legislative session. Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to
exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of
.Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish
for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the
present case.

"Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify
and is punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so
punishable."

Arnault v. Balagtas
The continued confinement is valid. The confinement is not a punishment but
merely to coerce Arnault into telling the truth.


Limits on the Power of Legislative Investigation
1. Must be in aid of legislation
In Begzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the Court ruled that the
investigation was not in aid of legislation but merely tried to determine whether
the relatives of Pres. Aquino violated the law. The case was also dismissed
because the issue was already in court. Hence, the legislative investigation
cannot be invoked, or the legislature cannot inquire.
2. Must be in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
3. The rights of persons appearing in affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.

Senate v. Ermita
Section 1 of EO 464 is valid. Under Section 22 of Article VI, the appearance of
department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. However,
Section 1 cannot be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in
aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal
of the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege
is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the Executive
Secretary.

Section 2b is invalid because it enumerates persons. Executive privilege is
properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information and not to
categories of persons..

Sabio v. Gordon
Section 4(b) of EO No. 1
5
is repealed by Sec. 21 of Article VI. The power of
inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch.

Neri v. Senate
What is executive privilege?
It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch
officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the
public.

What are the types of executive privilege?
a. state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other
security matters)
b. identity of government informers
c. information related to pending investigations
d. presidential communications
e. deliberative process

What are the types of executive privilege?
a. state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other
security matters)
b. identity of government informers
c. information related to pending investigations
d. presidential communications
e. deliberative process

What is the type of executive privilege claimed in this case?
The type of executive privilege claimed in this case is the

5
No member of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or
administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.
presidential communications privilege.

Is there a presumption in favor of presidential communications?
Yes. Presidential communications are presumptively privileged. It can be over
be overcome by compelling need in the interest of justice. In this case, Senate
committees have not adequately shown compelling need for the answers of the
three questions.

What are the elements of the presidential communications privilege?
a. The protected communication must relate to a quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power.
b. The communication must be authored or solicited and
received by a close advisor of the President or the President
himself. The advisor must be in operational proximity with the
President.
c. The privilege is a qualified privilege that may be overcome
by a showing of adequate or compelling need that would justify the
limitation of the privilege and that the information sought is
unavailable elsewhere by an appropriate investigating agency.

What are examples of quintessential and non-delegable presidential
powers which are covered by the presidential communications
privilege?
*powers of the president as commander-in-chief (i.e., to call
out the armed forces to suppress violence, to declare martial law, or
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus)
*the power to appoint officials and remove them
*the power to grant pardons and reprieves
*the power to receive ambassadors
*the power to negotiate treaties and to enter into execute agreements.

Three Questions invoked by Neri to be an Executive Privilege by Order of the
President
a. Whether the President followed up on the NBN project?
b. Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?
c. Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the
project after being told about the alleged bribe?

The three questions are presidential communication.

Is executive privilege absolute?
No. Any claim of executive privilege must be weighed against other interests
recognized by the constitution, like the state policy of full public disclosure of all
transactions involving public interest, the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern, the accountability of public officers, the power of
legislative inquiry, and the judicial power to secure evidence in deciding cases.

US v. Nixon
418 US 683 (1974)
FACTS: US President Richard Nixon was included as an unindicted conspirator
in a case with various offenses among which were conspiracy to defraud the US
and obstruct justice in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. A
subpoena duces tecum was issued upon the motion of special prosecutor to
require the production of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts or other
writing relating to certain precisely identified meetings. Presidents counsel filed a
motion to quash subpoena invoking the privilege of the President against
disclosure of such information.
Issue: Whether or not executive privilege can be invoked to cover a crime.
HELD: No. The special prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a
subpoena. Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of presidential
communication in the exercise of executive power, the privilege can be said to
derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of
constitutional duties. However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor
the need for confidentiality of high-level communication can sustain absolute,
unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all
circumstances.

A9. Other Powers
a. Act as board of canvassers for presidential election-Article VII, Section 4;
Pimentel v. Joint Com.
Article VII, Section 4
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by
the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates
of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon
determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner
provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but
in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

Take note: When Congress act as national board of canvassers, it acts within its
non-legislative powers.
6


b. Call a special election for Presidency- Article VII, Section 10

6
Include power to canvass the presidential elections, to declare the existence of war, to give concurrence
to treaties and amnesties, to propose constitutional amendments and to impeach.

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-President occurs, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a
law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to
be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of
such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed 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
election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt
from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution.
The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election
postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within
eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

c. Decide on disability of the president- Section 11, Article VII
Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a
written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged
by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President
of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no
inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile,
should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to
the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the
Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if
not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by
a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall
act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers
and duties of his office.

d. Legislative veto- Section 27, Article VI; or extension for habeas corpus or
declaration of martial law- Section 18, Article VII
Section 27, Article VI.(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall
sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal
and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together
with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a
law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or
nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items
to which he does not object.
Section 18, Article VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in
person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of
a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly
connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.

e. Presidential Amnesties- Section 19, Article VII
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution,
the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines
and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress.

f. Concur in treaties- Section 21, Article VII
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred
in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

g. Declaration of existence of a state of war- Section 23(1) Article VI
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint
session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
h. Delegation of emergency powers- Section 23 (2) Article VI
Section 23 (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may,
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry
out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

i. Utilization of natural resources- Section 2(4) Article XII
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law xxx.

j. Amendments of Constitution- Section 1 Article XVII
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.

k. Power of impeachment- Section 3 Article XI
(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all
cases of impeachment.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment.







B. Executive Department

1. The President

a. Qualifications, election, term, and oath

Article VII, Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and
write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such
election.

Article VII, Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the
election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter.

The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has
succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and
Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed
elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number
of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of
all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the
certificates.

Article VII, Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office,
the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the
following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously
fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the
Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do
justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.
So help me God." (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

b. Privileges and Salary

Article VII, Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The
salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law
and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not
receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or
any other source.

-Republic v. Sandiganbayan
Failure to submit Statement of Assets and Liabilities, it is presumed that
his property and income are only those what he has earned during his
term of office.

When is a property presumed to be unlawfully acquired (Sec. 2, R.A.
1379)
(1) ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during
his incumbency, whether it be in his name or otherwise, and
(2) the extent to which the amount of that money or property
exceeds, i. e., is grossly disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the
public officer.
(3) that the said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as
such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the
income from legitimately acquired property.

c. Succession

1. In case of vacancy at the beginning of the term

Article VII, Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-
elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.

If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall
act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.

If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect
shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and
qualified.

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect
shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the
Vice President-elect shall become President.

Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or
shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become
permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his
inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as
President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been
chosen and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one
who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a
Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent
disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph.

2. In case of vacancy during term

Article VII, Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-
President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or
resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President
of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President
or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in
case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting
President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President
shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same
restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

3. In case of temporary disability
Article VII, Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits
to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and
duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting
President.

Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to
the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all
the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress
shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written
declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as
President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the
powers and duties of his office.

-Estrada v. Arroyo
It was said that there must be intent to resign and the intent must
be coupled by acts of relinquishment

There is no formal requirement as to form of a valid resignation. It
can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied.
As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.

The Totality test may be used to determine whether or not the
President has resigned or not.

d. Removal

Article XI, Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by
law, but not by impeachment.

e. Prohibitions

Article VII, Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of
the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or 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 contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries.

Article IX, B, Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for
appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position
during his tenure.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in
the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries.

f. Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office:

1. Vice-president as member of the cabinet

Article VII, Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall
have the 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.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet.
Such appointment requires no confirmation.

2. Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial Bar Council

Article VIII Section 8 (1)
A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision
of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court,
and a representative of the private sector.

-Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
Sec. 7, Article IX-B, as a blanket prohibition, is meant to lay down the
general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and
employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception
applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the
Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

-De La Cruz v. Commission on Audit
Sec. 13, Article VII applies even those who sit as alternates. Alternates
cannot have a better right than their principals.

-National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit
Sec. 13, Article VII applies to agents, alternate, or representative of those
mentioned in the said provision.

2. Powers and Functions of the President

a. Executive Power

Article VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed. (Source of residual power)

-Marcos v. Manglapus
The President possesses unstated residual powers which are implied from
the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply
with her duties under the Constitution.

-DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees
The doctrine of qualified political agency is corollary to the control power
of the President. He may delegate some of his powers to his cabinet
members except in some situations where the Constitution solely provided
its exercise only by him. He cannot be expected to exercise his control
and supervisory powers all the time.

b. Control of Executive Departments

-Blaquera v. Alcala
As the head of the government, the President has the power of control
over executive departments. Through this power, he may review, modify,
or nullify any action or decision of his subordinate in the executive
departments.

-Hutchinson Ports v. SBMA
As a chartered institution, the SBMA is always under the direct control of
the Office of the President, particularly when contracts and/or projects
undertaken by the SBMA entail substantial amounts of money.

-National Electrification Administration v. Commission on Audit
The presidential power of control over the executive branch of government
extends to all executive employees from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest
clerk.

NEAs accelerated release of salary is not in accordance with the law
because it is still requires the approval of the President.

c. General Supervision over Local Government Units/Autonomous Regions

Article II, Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments.

Article II, Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy
local autonomy.

Article X, Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to
component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with
respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their
component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and
functions.

Article X, Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to
create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges
subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide,
consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and
charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.

Article X, Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as
determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically
released to them

-Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre
The President only exercises supervision over local governments and
territorial and political subdivisions.

The members of the Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter
egos. As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President, at
whose will and behest they can be removed from office; or their actions
and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. In contrast, the heads of
political subdivisions are elected by the people. Their sovereign powers
emanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. By
constitutional fiat, they are subject to the Presidents supervision only, not
control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their
legitimate powers

Local government units also enjoy fiscal autonomy as well. Fiscal
autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their
own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national
taxes released by the national government, as well as the power to
allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities.

A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the
shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. This is mandated by no
less than the Constitution.

d. Power of Appointments

Article VII, Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President
shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within
ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.

Article VII, Section 15. Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting
President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.

Article VII, Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
or officers of the armed forces from 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
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by
law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President
alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the
recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission
on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least
three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
For the lower courts, the President shall issued the appointment within
ninety days from the submission of the list.

Article VIII, Section 8 (2)
The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President
for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three
years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the
private sector for one year.

Article IX, B, Section 1 (2)
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term
of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years,
and another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.

Article IX, C, Section 1 (2)
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term
of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three
Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years,
and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment
to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In
no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity.

Article IX, Section 1 (2)
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term
of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the
Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five
years, and the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Article XI, Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be
appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by
the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every
vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All
vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.

Distinction: (From Christian Sabas Notes)
a.Permanent v. Temporary: Permanent appointments are those extended
to persons possessing the requisite eligibility and are thus protected by
the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Temporary
appointments are given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will
and without the necessity of just cause or a valid investigation; made on
the understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a
permanent appointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced
at any time a permanent choice is made.

b.Regular v. ad interim: A regular appointment is one made by the
President while the Congress is in session, takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and once approved
continues until the end of the term of the appointee. An ad interim
appointment is one made by the President while the Congress is not in
session, takes effect immediately, but ceases to be valid if disapproved by
the Commission on Appointments or if not confirmed upon the next
adjournment of Congress. Note: An ad interim appointment can be
considered a permanent appointment.

c. Ad Interim appointments v. appointments in an acting capacity: Ad
Interim appointments are extended only during a recess of Congress,
whereas acting appointments may be extended any time there is vacancy.
Moreover, ad interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation or rejection; acting appointments are not
submitted to the Commission.

-Bermudez v. Torrez
The phrase "upon recommendation of the Secretary," found in Section 9,
Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the Revised Administrative Code, is merely
advisory in nature.

An "appointment" to a public office is the unequivocal act of designating or
selecting by one having the authority therefor of an individual to discharge
and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust. The appointment
is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority
has been complied with and its acceptance thereafter by the appointee in
order to render it effective. Appointment necessarily calls for an exercise
of discretion on the part of the appointing authority

-Sarmiento v. Mison
These four (4) groups of appointments under Section 15, Article VII, to wit:
1. First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution;

2. Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law;

3. Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;

4. Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone.

All appointments, excluding the 1
st
group, necessitate the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments.

-Concepcion-Bautista v. Salonga
The President cannot confer power of confirmation over his appointments
that are exclusively reserved by the Constitution to him only. Nor can the
Commission on Appointments create power to confirm the appointments
exclusively reserved to the President by the Constitution.

Ad interim appointments extend only to appointments where the review of
the Commission on Appointments is needed. They remain valid until
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of Congress.

-Calderon v. Carale
Congress cannot, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of appointments extended by the President to government
officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of
Sec. 16, Article VII of the Constitution whose appointments require
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

-Manalo v. Sistoza
The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and
the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine National
Police. They do not fall under the first group of Sec. 16, Article VII.

-Soriano v. Lista
Philippine Coast Guards are not within the first group of Sec. 16, Article
VII. The clause officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain refers to military officers alone.

-Pimentel v. Ermita
The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary
nature. It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time
until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office.

Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the President the obligation to
appoint automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego.
An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent, holds a position of great
trust and confidence. Congress cannot impose on the President who
her alter ego should be.

The office of a department secretary may become vacant while Congress
is in session. Since a department secretary is the alter ego of the
President, the acting appointee to the office must necessarily have the
Presidents confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the office of a
department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacity a
person of her choice even while Congress is in session. That person may
or may not be the permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make it
expedient that the acting appointee will also be the permanent appointee.
-De Castro v. JBC (Superseded In Re: Valenzuela)
Section 9, Article VIII, exempts judicial appointments from the prohibition
of Section 15, Article VII.

-De Rama v. Court of Appeals
Section 15, Article VII, applies only to presidential appointments.

-Matibag v. Benipayo
Ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once
the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its
permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad
interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of Congress.

An ad interim appointment enjoys security of tenure.

While an ad interim appointment is permanent and irrevocable except as
provided by law, an appointment or designation in a temporary or acting
capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing
power. A temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy any security of
tenure, no matter how briefly.

Under the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution,
the President can choose either of two modes in appointing officials who
are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. First,
while Congress is in session, the President may nominate the prospective
appointee, and pending consent of the Commission on Appointments, the
nominee cannot qualify and assume office. Second, during the recess of
Congress, the President may extend an ad interim appointment which
allows the appointee to immediately qualify and assume office.

An ad interim appointee disapproved by the Commission on Appointments
can no longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final
decision of the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of its
checking power on the appointing authority of the President

The prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad
interim appointments. A disapproved ad interim appointment cannot be
revived by another ad interim appointment because the disapproval is final
under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and not because a
reappointment is prohibited under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the
Constitution. A by-passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a
new ad interim appointment because there is no final disapproval under
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and such new appointment will
not result in the appointee serving beyond the fixed term of seven years.

The phrase "without reappointment" applies only to one who has been
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments, whether or not such person completes his term of office.
There must be a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the
previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment can apply.

-Larin v. Executive Secretary
The "power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint". It is conferred
to the President by Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. However,
this is not absolute because a valid appointee enjoys security of tenure
and may only be remove through a just cause or administrative cause.

e. Executive Clemency

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress.

What does Executive Clemency include? (From Christian Sabas Notes)
1. Reprieves- Postpones execution of punishment
2. Commutation- Remission of part of penalty
3. Pardon- The action of an executive official of the government that
mitigates or sets aside the punishment for a crime.
4. Remit fines and forfeitures
5. Probation- A sentence whereby a convict is released from confinement
but is still under court supervision; a testing or a trial period. Probation can
be given in lieu of a prison term or can suspend a prison sentence if the
convict has consistently demonstrated good behavior.
6. Parole- The conditional release of a person convicted of a crime prior to
the expiration of that person's term of imprisonment, subject to both the
supervision of the correctional authorities during the remainder of the term
and a resumption of the imprisonment upon violation of the conditions
imposed.
7. Amnesty- The action of a government by which all persons or certain
groups of persons who have committed a criminal offenseusually of a
political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as
Sedition or treason)are granted Immunity from prosecution.

Pardon distinguished from probation(From Christian Sabas Notes)
Pardon: official, private act of the president, not complete without
acceptance. Removes penalties and legal disabilities.
Probation: freedom with restriction for a limited period of time, chance to
be free provided there is good behavior.

Pardon distinguished from parole(From Christian Sabas Notes)
Parole: release after sentence is completed. During this period if there is
proof of rehabilitation then there will be no further prison sentence

Pardon distinguished from amnesty(From Christian Sabas Notes)
1. Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act
which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the
courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief
Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which
the courts should take judicial notice.
2. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to
classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses,
generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and
sometimes after conviction.
3. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences
of an offense; abolished or forgives the punishment, but does not abolish
civil liability while amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into
oblivion the offense itself as though he had committed no offense.
4. Amnesty is for political crimes; whereas pardon is for any crime
5. Pardon doesnt restore right to hold public office and right of suffrage
unless expressly restored by pardon. Amnesty does not affect such rights
as the offender is treated as if he committed no crime at all.

-Vera v. People
Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused
maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for
amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as
in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of
such conditions.

-Cristobal v. Labrador
There are two limitations upon the exercise of this constitutional
prerogative by the Chief Executive, namely: (a) that the power be
exercised after convictions; and (b) that such power does not extend to
cases of impeachment.

The pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative
action

An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes
all disabilities resulting from the convictions.

-Pelobello v. Palatino
Adopted the broad view decision of Cristobal v. Labrador

-In Re: Lontok
To exclude the petitioner from the practice of law for the offense would be
to enforce a punishment for the offense, when he has already been
pardoned for it.

Where proceedings to strike an attorney's name from the rolls are founded
on, and depend alone, on a statute making the fact of a conviction for a
felony ground for disbarment, it has been held that a pardon operates to
wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment
of the attorney after the pardon has been granted.

But where proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on the
professional misconduct involved in a transaction which has terminated in
a conviction of felony, it has been held that while the effect of the pardon
is to relieve him of the penal consequences of his act, it does not operate
as a bar to the disbarment proceedings, inasmuch as the criminal acts
may nevertheless constitute proof that the attorney does not possess a
good moral character and is not a fit or proper person to retain his license
to practice law.




-Torrez v. Gonzales
The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a
conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to
judicial scrutiny.

f. Commander-in-Chief

Article VII, Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing
to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following
such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution,
nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies,
nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested
or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he
shall be released.

-IBP v. Zamora
Section 18, Article VII embodies the powers of the President as the
Commander-in-Chief. The full discretionary power of the President to
determine the factual basis for the exercise of the calling out power is also
implied and further reinforced therein. Under the said provisions,
Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension and the Court
may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is
no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the
Presidents action to call out the armed forces.

The only criterion to exercise the calling-out power is that whenever it
becomes necessary, the President may call the armed forces to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The implication is that
the President is given full discretion and wide latitude in the exercise of the
power to call.

-Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary
The purpose of exercising the calling out power of all armed forces the
Constitution does not require the President to make a declaration of a
state of rebellion. It only requires that it be necessary.

Section 18, Article VII also does not expressly prohibit the President from
declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the
President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and
foremost, with Executive powers

-Aquino v. Enrile
The validity of a martial law proclamation and its continuation is political
and non-justiciable in character.

The test is not whether the President's decision is correct but whether, in
suspending the writ, he did or did not act arbitrarily.

-Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 4
As long as the civil courts in the land are open and functioning, military
tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses
committed by them. Whether or not martial law has been proclaimed
throughout the country or over a part thereof is of no moment.

-Navales v. Abaya
Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons
subject to military law xxx who commit crimes xxx penalized under the
Revised Penal Code xxx shall be tried by the proper civil court, except
when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is
service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-
martial.

-Lansang v. Garcia (From Christian Sabas Notes)
Judicial inquiry can go no further than to satisfy the Court not that the
Presidents decision is correct, but that the President did not
act arbitrarily. Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness, but
arbitrariness.

The grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor
unqualified. For the valid suspension of the privilege of the writ: (a) there
must be "invasion, insurrection or rebellion"; and (b) public safety must
require the aforementioned suspension.

-In Re: De Villa
The writ applies "to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a
person has been deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of
any person has been withheld from the person entitled thereto".

-David v. Arroyo (From Christian Sabas Notes)
While the Court considered the Presidents calling-out power as a
discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that this does
not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within
permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner
constituting grave abuse of discretion.

g. Emergency Powers

Article VI, Section 23 (1)
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper
to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.

Article XII, Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public
interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under
reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the
operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.

h. Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans

Article VII, Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a
complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled
corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt,
and containing other matters as may be provided by law.

-Constantino v. Cuisia
Article VII, Section 20 allows the President to contract and guarantee
foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of
loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more
onerous than others.

The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that the loans must be subject to
limitations provided by law.

i. Foreign Affairs

Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
of the Senate.

-Peoples Movement for Press Freedom v. Hon. Raul Manglapus

-Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading
Executive Agreements may be validly entered into by the President
without the need of concurrence of the Senate.

Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval
of two thirds of the Senate. Executive agreements become binding
through executive

-Go Tek v. Deportation Board
It has been held that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of
the existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed
in an investigation conducted in accordance with. No other tribunal is at
liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on
which he acted.






j. Legislation

1. Address Congress

Article VII, Section 23. The President shall address the Congress
at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it
at any other time.

2. Preparation and submission of the budget

Article VII, Section 22. The President shall submit to the
Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular
session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of
expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from
existing and proposed revenue measures.

3. Veto-Power

Article VI, Section 27.
Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law,
be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall
sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his
objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the
objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If,
after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such
House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of
each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of
the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal.
The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House
where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or
items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

4. Emergency Powers

Article VI, Section 23 (1)
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by
law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof.

k. Immunity from Suit

-Soliven v. Makasiar
The President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and
submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the
privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision
that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person.

-Gloria v. Court of Appeals
The doctrine of presidential immunity has no application where the petition
for prohibition is directed not against the President himself but against his
subordinates.

Furthermore, presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts
where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction

3. Vice-Presidential

a. Qualifications, election, term, and oath

b. Privileges and Salary

c. Prohibitions

d. Succession

(SAME WITH THE PRESIDENT)

Article VII, Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
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.

The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such
appointment requires no confirmation.

Article VII, Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the
Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President
shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate
and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the
Congress, voting separately.

C. The Judicial Department

1. The Judicial Power

Article VIII, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

-This gives the Supreme Court two powers: 1.) Duty of the Courts of
Justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and 2.) Determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

2. The Supreme Court

a. Composition and b. Mode of Sitting

Article VIII, Section 4.
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety
days from the occurrence thereof.

-MMDA v. Jancom
The Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or
resolutions of a Division may be appealed. A decision of a Division of the
Court is a decision of the Supreme Court.

-People v. Gacott
The power to discipline members may be decided by a Division.

A decision en banc is needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the
dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a
lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than 1
year or a fine exceeding P10, 000.00 or both. (From Christian Sabas
Notes)

c. Appointment and Qualifications

Article VIII, Section 4(1)
The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety
days from the occurrence thereof.


Article VIII, Section 7.
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme 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 been for fifteen years or more, a judge of
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower
courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a
citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least
three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within
ninety days from the submission of the list.

d. No Non-judicial Work for Judges

Article VII, Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other
courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

-Meralco v. Pasay Trans Co.
The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required
to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not
pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.

They cannot sit as a board of arbitrators and perform such functions.

-Garcia v. Macaraig
The Court looks with disfavor at the practice of long standing to be sure, of
judges being detailed in the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary
even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative
authority over the courts.

e. Salary

Article VIII, Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts
shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall not
be decreased.

-Nitafan v. Comelec
The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are
properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income
earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges
does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their
salaries during their continuance in office.

f. Tenure

Article VIII, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach
the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties
of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted in thereon.

g. Removal
Article XI, Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of
the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by
law, but not by impeachment.
-In Re: Gonzales
A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the
constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of
the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be
thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either
criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or
misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.

A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of
the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may
be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with
disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.

h. Fiscal Autonomy

Article VIII, Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature
below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval,
shall be automatically and regularly released.

i. Jurisdiction

Article VIII, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Article VIII, Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various 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 undermines the
security of tenure of its Members.

Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:
Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

1. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as
the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in:

2. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.

a. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.

b. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.

c. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.

d. All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.

e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.

-Santiago v. Bautista
The "committee on the ratings of students for honor" whose actions are
here condemned by appellant is not the "tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial functions" against which an action for certiorari may lie
under Section 1 of Rule 65.

In order that a special civil action of certiorari may be invoked in this
jurisdiction the following circumstances must exist:

(1) that there must be a specific controversy brought before a tribunal,
board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and
obligations.

(2) the tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is brought
must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a
decision on the controversy brought before it.

(3) the tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of the
sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least, which does not
belong to the legislative or executive department.

-Felipe v. Leuterio
It should not be a mere privilege. There must be a wrong suffered by a
person. Wrong" as used in the aforesaid legal principle is the deprivation
or violation of a right. As stated before, a contestant has no right to the
prize unless and until he or she is declared winner by the board of
referees or judges.



j. Deliberations

Article VIII, Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any
case submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division shall be reached
in consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member for the
writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by
the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record
of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or
dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the
reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower
collegiate court.

-Prudential Bank v. Castro
Resolutions/decisions of the Court in administrative cases have not been
accompanied by any formal certification; only in judicial decisions
But even if such a certification were required, it is beyond doubt that the
conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after consultation
and deliberation. The signatures of the members who actually took part in
the deliberations and voted attest to that. Besides, being a per
curiam decision, or an opinion of the Court as a whole, there is
no ponente although any member of the Court may be assigned to write
the draft. In such cases, a formal certification is obviously not required.

-Consing v. Court of Appeals
The lack of certification at the end of the decision would only serve as
evidence of failure to observe the certification requirement and may be
basis for holding the official responsible for the omission to account
therefor. Such absence of certification would not have the effect of
invalidating the decision.

k. Voting

Article VIII, Section 4.

1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and
fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in
division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme
Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court
are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.

3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved
with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of
such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the
case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en
banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court
sitting en banc.

-Cruz v. DENR
As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was
not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after
redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to
Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
DISMISSED and the law is declared CONSTITUTIONAL.

l. Requirement as to Decisions

Article VIII, Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefore.

-Valldaolid v. Inciong
The requirement applies to decisions of Courts only.

-Nunal v. COA
A "Resolution" is not a "Decision" within the meaning of the Constitutional
requirement. This mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for
decision," i.e., given due course and after the filing of Briefs or
Memoranda and/or other pleadings, as the case may be. It is not
applicable to an Order or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition
for Certiorari

-People v. Bugarin
The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and that
they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
they are based serves many functions. It is intended, among other things,
to inform the parties of the reason or reasons for the decision so that if any
of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate court the findings of
facts or the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More than
that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching
judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is,
thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him
from deciding by ipse dexit.

-Hernandez v. Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals did not deem it necessary to make a separate
finding of facts for said assigned errors, because they were just the
necessary consequences of the previous, assigned errors.

The constitutional mandate only requires that the decision should state the
facts on which it is based. There is no proscription made in the briefs or
memoranda.

-Yao v. Court of Appeals
A decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal, should
directly meet the issue for resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be
pointless while brevity in the writing of decision is an admirable trait, it
should not and cannot be substituted for substance.

-Dion c. Judge Lopez
A "sin perjuicio" judgment, which is a judgment without a statement of the
facts in support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by the final
judgment.

The Supreme Court already expressed its disapproval of the practice of
rendering "sin perjuicio" judgments.

-Asiavest v. Court of Appeals
No sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment
rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, the rules of comity,
utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among
civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under
certain conditions that may vary in different countries.

A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar
as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are
concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an
opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent
jurisdiction.

A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from
which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of
regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.


m. Petition for Review with Motion for Reconsideration

Article VIII, Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefore.

-Tichangco v. Enriquez
Certiorari under Rule 65 involves a correction of errors of jurisdiction only,
or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
is not a substitute for an appeal, when the latter remedy is available.

-Fr. Martinez v. Court of Appeals
The requirement under Article VIII, Section 14 was fully complied with
when the Court of Appeals, in denying reconsideration of its decision,
stated in its resolution that it found no reason to change its ruling because
petitioner had not raised anything new.

n. Periods for Deciding Cases

Article VIII, Section 15.
1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must
be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.

2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by
the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith
be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a
decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said
period.

4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court,
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter
submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

-Re: Delays in the Sandiganbayan
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution does not apply
to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower
collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of
Appeals.

Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution, "Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court."

Pursuant to P.D. 1606, the law creating the Sandiganbayan, the Court
ruled that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to
decide cases applies to it.

o. Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4(7).The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.

p. Administrative Powers

1. Supervision of Lower Courts

Article VIII, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

-In Re: Demetria
The Supreme Court ordered Justice Demetria DISMISSED from the
service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his
appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or
instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled
corporation or institution.

2. Temporarily Assign Judges to other station in Public Interest

Article VIII, Section 5(3).
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as
public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not
exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.

3. Order a Change of Venue or Place of Trial to avoid miscarriage of Justice

Article VIII, 5(4).
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage
of justice.

-People v. Pilotin
Present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is
a justification for transfer of venue.

The change of venue involves not merely the change of the place
of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of the case to
another court.

-Mondiguing v. Abad
A change of venue was ordered by this Court in a case where it
was shown that the accused might be liquidated by his enemies in
the place where the trial was originally scheduled to be held

-People v. Sola
There may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to
some individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must
always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. The
primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in
mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of
venue.

4. Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary

Article VIII, Section 5(6).
6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance
with the Civil Service Law.

5. Promulgate Rules concerning the enforcement and protection of
constitutional rights.
6. Promulgate Rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure
7. Admission to the Practice of law
8. Integration of the Bar
9. Legal assistance to the Underprivileged

Article VIII, Section 5(5).
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Writ of Habeas corpus- is a summons with the force of a court
order, addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example)
demanding that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the
custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine
if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person.

Writ of Amparo- a remedy available to any person whose right to
life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers
existing extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.

Writ of Habeas Data- is designed to protect, by means of an
individual complaint presented to a constitutional court, the image,
privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of
information of a person.Habeas Data can be brought up by any
citizen against any manual or automated data register to find out
what information is held about his or her person. That person can
request the rectification, actualisation or even the destruction of the
personal data held.

Writ of Kalikasan a special civil action akin to the Writ of Amparo
but protects ones right for a healthy environment rather than
constitutional rights.

-Zaldivar v. Gonzales
The Court has two related powers: the inherent power to discipline
attorneys and the contempt power. The disciplinary authority of the
Court over members of the Bar is broader than the power to punish
for contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers
and non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the
contemnor is a lawyer, the contumacious conduct also constitutes
professional misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary
authority of the Supreme Court. Where the respondent is a lawyer,
however, the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers
may come into play whether or not the misconduct with which the
respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of court. The
disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but
corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A
lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court
and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and
responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in
society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert,
or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes
both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary
action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting
application of the contempt power.

-In Re: Cunanan
The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal
equal responsibility concerning the admission to the practice of law.
The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution
recognizes continue to reside in this Court. Had Congress found
that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it would
have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it.
Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated
by this Court, but the authority and responsibility over the
admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys
at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court.

-Aguirre v. Rana
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is
a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with
special qualifications duly ascertained and certified.

A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by
passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that
can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law
without a license

The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become
an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his signature
in the Roll of Attorneys.

-In Re: Edillon
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not
violative of his constitutional freedom to associate.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of
which he is not already a member. He became a member of the
Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration
actually does is to provide an official national organization for the
well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every
lawyer is a ready a member

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under
its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine
Bar requiring members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are,
to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of
regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite
apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure,
designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and
purposes of integration.
.
-In Re: IBP Elections Bar Mattter No. 491
Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-
political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The respondent violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made
a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar
enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws.

q. Report on the Judiciary

Article VIII, Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty
days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress,
submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the
operations and activities of the Judiciary.

3. Lower Courts

a. Qualifications and Appointment

Article VIII, Section 7.
1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme 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 been for fifteen years or more, a judge of
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower
courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a
citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of
lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least
three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within
ninety days from the submission of the list.

b. Tenure

Article VIII, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach
the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties
of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted in thereon.

-De La Llana v. Alba (From Christian Sabas Notes)
Congress can abolish the positions in the lower courts but not the
Supreme Court.

4. The Judicial and Bar Council

Article VIII, Section 8.
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of
the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a
representative of the private sector.

2. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the
President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission
on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of
the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for
three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of
the private sector for one year.

3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the
Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as
may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall
provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.

5. The Council shall have the principal function of recommending
appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and
duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

5. Automatic Release of appropriations for the Judiciary

Article VIII, Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature
below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval,
shall be automatically and regularly released.