Constitutional Law - I

Final Exam Reviewer

Article VII - The Executive Branch

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

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.

The ability to read and read requires a degree of literacy but a college degree is not necessary.
10-year residency requirement to supposedly allow candidates to have a thorough understanding of the
country's conditions.
As they are elected at large, qualified Filipino voters abroad may vote for not only party-list organizations
but also for the President and the Vice-President, pursuant to R.A. 9189.

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.

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

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 President is NOT eligible for re-election of the same Office at ANY given time. Any person who
succeeds as President and has held such office for at least 4 years shall not also be qualified for re-
election of the same Office at ANY given time.
-Why was ERAP allowed to run for re-election in 2010?
- Sec. 4 states "No Vice-President shall serve for more than 2 consecutive 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."
Although this rule is situated after the restriction made for the Vice-President such
should all the more apply to the President.
-CASE: Pormento vs. Estrada - Case was dismissed on a technicality as the case was
not decided until after the elections. The issue had become moot and academic and any
decision rendered would have been speculative as no actual controversy existed due to
PNoy's victory.
- It would have only been proper for the SC to render a decision as two of the
qualifications for judicial review, among others, are (1) if the issue is capable of
repetition in evading review; and (2) if the issue is of paramount public importance.
- PGMA succeeded ERAP but held office for less than 4 years. Hence, she was allowed to
seek re- election.
The Vice-President is allowed to seek re-election PROVIDED that he shall not serve for more than 2
consecutive terms.
- Can anyone who has served as Vice-President for 2 consecutive terms seek re-election for the
Vice-Presidency after a break period (i.e. 2004-2010, 2010-2016, then 2022-2028)?
- No idea. The Constitution does not have the answer. No case on the issue has
surfaced.
- A President who has served his term and subsequently served as Vice-President but succeeded
to the Presidency can VALIDLY hold office as the President once more as he sought re-election
not for the Presidency but for the Vice-Presidency. The single-term limitation will not apply in
this case.
The Congress shall canvass the votes for the President and Vice-President and shall proclaim the winners.
- It is not required that the President and the Vice-President garner majority of the votes but
merely the highest number of votes.
- COMELEC does not proclaim the winners for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency.
 - CASE: Macalintal vs. COMELEC - SC declared as invalid Sec. 18.5 of RA 9189 which gave
powers to the COMELEC to make a partial proclamation of winners for the Presidency
and the Vice-Presidency in the Absentee Voters Election. Only Congress can make such
pronouncement.
- How is a tie resolved?
- It shall be decided by Congress in joint session assembled but voting separately.
- The winner(s) shall be who is proclaimed by both houses of Congress in joint session
assembled but voting separately.
- Required votes: Majority of each house of Congress.
- In the event of a deadlock between both houses in the resolution of a tie, how is the deadlock
resolved?
- Voting will go on until both houses reach a consensus.
- Coin toss is only applied to ties in local elections.
- In the event of a contest relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President
or Vice-President, the Supreme Court en banc shall have jurisdiction.
- In such cases, the Supreme Court shall constitute itself as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal.
- CASE: FPJ vs. Arroyo - PRIOR to the proclamation of winners of the Presidential and
Vice-Presidential elections it is the COMELEC that should entertain any election contests
involving the Presidential or the Vice-Presidential aspirants
- CASE: Grace Poe vs. COMELEC - Overturned FPJ vs. Arroyo. COMELEC has no
jurisdiction on contests involving the qualifications of the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential candidates even before the proclamation of winners.
COMELEC only has jurisdiction over election contests up to elections in the
regional level. The doctrine in Limkaichong vs. COMELEC which enunciates that
election cases prior to proclamation of winners should be decided by COMELEC is now
open to debate. There is now a problem as to which body has cognizance over election
cases involving members of Congress.
-CASE: Macalintal vs. PET - Macalintal questioned the constitutionality of the SC
deciding election contests for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency as, according to
him, the SC was in effect performing a quasi-judicial function which is prohibited under
Sec. 12, Art VIII. HELD: It is not a quasi-judicial function but a purely judicial function.
The same is done in exercise of its power of judicial review.
- Although the power of the SC to review election contests involving the Presidency and
the Vice-Presidency is NOT done under its power of judicial review.
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].

President and Vice-President elect are mandated to take their oath of office before they can perform their
official functions. Unless, once he/she has taken oath he/she may not be allowed to perform his duties as
the case may be.

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.

One privilege of being elected President is having an official residence - Malacaan Palace
The salaries of the President and the Vice-President are fixed by law.
- Under Sec. 17, Art. XVIII, unless a different rate is prescribed by law the annual salary for the
President is P300,000.00 while the Vice-President gets P240,000.00.
- But the salaries of the both the President and the Vice-President have been increased to Salary
Grades 33 and 32 respectively.
-May Congress enact a law decreasing the salaries of the President and the Vice-President?
-NO.
-Can they be increased?
-YES, but such increase shall not take effect until the expiration of the term of the
incumbent.
- This is so that the President/Vice-President may not be beholden to Congress and can
maintain their independence.
- The President and the Vice-President may not receive additional remuneration from
government.
Immunity from suit - another privilege enjoyed by the President.
- No provision states that the President has immunity from suit.
- Founded on practical considerations.
-CASE: Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco as cited in Estrada vs. Arroyo.
- The President enjoys immunity from suit but he can be impeached from office.
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.

If by July 1 the Congress has not come to a consensus as to the winner of the Presidency or if the
President-elect was unable to take his oath or other similar scenarios, such situations will be governed by
the rule on presidential succession.
Such TEMPORARY vacancy will cause the Vice-President to become the acting President provided that the
winner for the Vice-Presidency has already been proclaimed.
Presidential succession governed by Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11 of Article VII.
Section 7 governs situations where vacancy in the Office of the President occurs prior to or the beginning
of the term of office of the President.
When the vacancy in the Presidency becomes PERMANENT the Vice-President shall become the
President.
When there is temporary or permanent vacancy in both the offices of the President and the Vice-
President, the Senate President, or, in his disability, the Speaker of the House shall become the acting
President. Neither the Senate President nor the Speaker of the House may serve as President
permanently.
When the Senate President becomes the acting President the Speaker of the House may NOT serve as
acting Vice-President. Constitution does not mandate for an acting Vice-President.
When the President, Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House are all unable to take oath
the Constitution has mandated the Congress to enact a law for such situation. However, NO LAW has
been enacted.
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.

Presidential succession in Section 8 governs situations where the vacancy in the Office of the President
occurs when the previous President was already serving his term.
The TEMPORARY vacancy will cause the Vice-President to become the acting President.
When the vacancy becomes PERMANENT the Vice-President shall become the President.
When there is temporary or permanent vacancy in both the offices of the President and the Vice-
President, the Senate President, or, in his disability, the Speaker of the House shall become the acting
President. Neither the Senate President nor the Speaker of the House may serve as President
permanently.
When the Senate President becomes the acting President the Speaker of the House may NOT serve as
acting Vice-President. Constitution does not mandate for an acting Vice-President.
When the President, Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House are all unavailable the
Constitution has mandated the Congress to enact a law for such situation. However, NO LAW has been
enacted.

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.

No acting Vice-President. No special election.

President must nominate someone from either the House of Representatives or the Senate for the Vice-
Presidency which is to be confirmed by the majority vote of both houses of Congress in joint session
assembled, voting separately.
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten oclock 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 VI 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 VI 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.

In case of permanent vacancy in both the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President:
- A special election will take place at ten o'clock on the third day following such vacancies in the
Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.
- Congress shall convene without need of call and within seven days from convening Congress
shall enact law calling for a presidential election.
- Such election shall be held NOT earlier than 45 days but NOT later than 60 days from the time
of call.
- Such law is deemed certified under Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI wherein such bill may become a law
upon its approval immediately after the third and final reading thereof.
- Appropriations shall be charged against any CURRENT appropriations and shall be exempt from
the requirements under Sec. 25 (4), Art. VI
- Convening of Congress for such special election can NEVER be postponed.
However, no special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs 18 months before the date of the next
presidential election (1 year and 6 months).
Any qualified person may run in a special election.

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 the President;
otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.

In such cases the Vice President will serve as the acting President until the President transmits his written
communication to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House that he is already able to discharge
his functions.
HOWEVER, when majority of the cabinet members express that the President is still incapable of
discharging his duties, the Vice President may, upon the transmission of the written communication of the
majority of the cabinet members to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House.
- HOWEVER, if the President disputes the pronouncement made by the majority if his cabinet
members, he shall reassume his functions as President.
- BUT, if within 5 days the cabinet members would still insist on the President's incapacity,
Congress would have to decide on whether or not the President is capacitated to perform his
functions by a two-thirds vote of each house in joint session assembled but voting separately.
- But in such case the VP shall only become ACTING President.

Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The
Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.

The public was not informed of Marcos's physical condition during his last days in office.
The cabinet members were not allowed access to Marcos in his last days.
This provision was abused in the case of President Arroyo's alleged breast augmentation surgery, this was
not the situation contemplated by Sec. 12.
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.

Prohibition on President, Vice-President, Cabinet members, and their deputies regarding the holding of
other offices is more stringent compared to members of Congress.
- Sec. 13 does not only prohibit them from other public offices but ALSO from private
profession/business directly or indirectly.
- Prohibition only applies to Congress insofar as holding another office in government but not to
the practice of their private profession, except that they may not appear in any court of law as
counsel if they are lawyers.
HOWEVER, under Sec. 3 of Art. VII, the Vice-President may hold office as a member of the Cabinet even
without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointment.
- BUT, the VP may NOT receive additional remuneration for the second position pursuant
to Sec. 6, Art. VII.
2nd par. also poses as a prohibition against nepotism by the President.
- Prohibition only applies to appointments by the President and not when the family members
stated in 2nd par. are voted into office.

Sec 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

The appointments made by acting Pres may still be reviewed and revoked by the Pres. Elect

Sec 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.
Prohibition against midnight appointments
The prayer is 2 months prior to the next presidential elections up to the expiration of the term of the
sitting acting President or the President as the case may be
- Because in the past during the time of President Garcia a night prior to the expiration of his term of
office he made numerous appointments, around 200, so it was questioned by incoming President
 Macapagal and Macapagal also stayed because according to the S.C. it was clearly a case of Midnight
appointments. In the case Macapagal was thinking who will appoint because it was all already filled
up but what was alarming about that, when Macapagal stepped down, he also made midnight
appointments

- Only exception is temporary appointments to executive positions where continued vacancies there
on would endanger public safety or prejudice public service

- But you may ask, how come Corona was appointed by Arroyo? [No doubt such appointment was
made within the 2 month period prior to the expiration of his term of office]. S.C upheld such validity
in the case of De Castro vs. JBC where De Castro questioned Coronas Midnight appointment. A lot of
people also questioned this appointment. While the other 2 nomine Justices of the S.C. backed off so
Corona accepted such nomination by GMA. S.C. said while it is true that midnight appointments are
not allowed under this section yet in so far is vacancies in S.C. and lower courts then following the
provision of Sec 4 p. 1 Art VIII and Sec. 9 of Art VIII then such vacancy had to filled up within a period
of 90 days from such vacancy and S.C. construed those provisions as exceptions to the rule under Sec
15 Art VII.

- But the ruling in De Castro vs. JBC was totally opposed to the earlier ruling of the case of in the matter
of Mateo Valenzuela. Our S.C agreed with Sec 15 Art VII even if such vacancies pertain to the JBC,
after all accdg to S.C Sec 15 Art VII covers any and all appointments to be made by the Pres. But in
Castro case which was later on ruled that the 2 articles in said case Sec 4 p. 1 Art VIII and Sec. 9 of Art
VIII are to be construed as exceptions under sec 15 of Art VII.

- Atty Gs opinion: I have some reservation about the case since in Stat Con when there is a conflict
between a general provision and a special one the special one prevails and there is no doubt that Sec
15 is specific in the sense that it imposes a specific limitation on the appointing powers mentioned in
Sec 4 p. 1 Art VIII and Sec. 9 of Art VIII are general provisions, in fact in the case of Valenzuela our
S.C. ruled that Sec 4 p. 1 Art VIII and Sec. 9 of Art VIII could not be considered as a exceptions to Sec
15 but it was overturned in De Castro (controlling). After this ruling Arroyo wanted to appoint more
judges but S.C she cant do that because this ruling only pertains to vacancy in the S.C. [exception to
the exception si De Castro case]

How about local chief execs like Mayor and Vice Mayor are they prohibited from making such
appointments?
 - Sec 15 only pertains to Acting President and President.
- In the case of De Rama vs. Court of Appeals our SC made it clear that the prohibition imposed on
midnight appointments is only appilicable to Pres and Acting Pres and not to Local Chief Execs like
Mayors and Governors
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 first and second sentences of Sec. 16 have to be dichotomized.

Appointments made by the President under the FIRST sentence would have to be confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments.
-"...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."
- CASE: Quintos-Deles vs. Commission on Appointments - The President appointed sectoral
representatives which was done pursuant to Sec. 7, Art. XVIII. Prior to RA 7941, implementing the
party-list elections, the President was given the power to appoint sectoral representatives.
ISSUE: Whether or not such appointments had to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments as Sec. 7, Art. XVII is silent on the matter. HELD: Any such appointment would fall
under the FIRST sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII, "... and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution."
- Appointments of regular members to the Judicial and Bar Council pursuant to Sec. 8 (2), Art. VIII
also fall under first sentence. (Representatives from the IBP, a law professor, a retired member of
the SC, and representative from the private sector,)
- Appointments to constitutional commissions like COA, COMELEC, Civil Service Commission as
provided for under Art. IX-B, Art. IX-C, and Art. IX-D of the Constitution.
- There are appointments which can be made by the President pursuant to the first sentence but
do not need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments:
a.) When the President appoints the Vice-President as a member of his Cabinet,
pursuant to Sec. 3, Art. VII.
b.) When the President appoints Justices of the SC and judges of the lower courts
pursuant to Sec. 9 Art. VIII.
c.) Appointment of the Ombudsman pursuant to Sec. 9 Art. XI.
 Whereas, appointments made by the President under the SECOND sentence do not require the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
- "...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."
- Chairman of the CHR, Sec. 17, Art. XIII created the CHR, however, there is no provision or law
regarding the CHR Chairman's appointment.
- Other government officials pursuant to a law which vests power on the President to appoint
certain officials. However, if such law provides that such appointment shall have to be confirmed
by the Commission on Appointments:
- CASE: Calderon vs. Carale - Calderon questioned the appointments of commissioners
to the NLRC without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. Under the
Labor Code, the NLRC commissioners are to be appointed by the President with the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. HELD: SC held that despite the
provision of the Labor Code requiring the confirmation of the commissioners of the
NLRC by the Commission on Appointments, such case still falls under the ambit of the
SECOND sentence, no confirmation necessary. Labor Code cannot amend Sec. 16, Art.
VII.
Appointments may be TEMPORARY or PERMANENT.
- Permanent when the appointee meets all the necessary qualifications. Otherwise, temporary
and the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time by the President when he/she finds a
suitable replacement with the necessary qualifications.
Appointments may also be REGULAR or AB INTERIM
- Regular when the process is followed. Where the President makes the nomination first, then
the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, then there is the issuance of
the appointing paper itself, then there is acceptance by the appointee. No person may be
compelled to accept an appointment otherwise such would amount to involuntary servitude. The
only type of service where a person may be compelled is when he/she is forced into military
service in times of war. Such appointment may be withdrawn by the appointing authority prior to
the acceptance of the appointee. CASE: Lacson vs. Romero. Regular appointments are made
while Congress is in session as the Commission on Appointments will also be in session.
- Ab Interim appointments are those made by the President while Congress in recess as the
Commission on Appointments will also be in recess. These appointments are valid until revoked
 by the Commission on Appointments once it convenes or if that Ab Interim appointment is not
acted upon by the Commission on Appointments until its adjournment.
- May an appointee which was not approved by the Commission on Appointments be re-
appointed? NO. But he may be appointed to another position as he may possess the
qualifications for another position. The appointment was disapproved
- May an Ab Interim appointee be re-appointed to the same position if his appointment was not
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments prior to its adjournment? YES. The appointment
was merely bypassed. CASE: Matibag vs. Benipayo.
- Can the President appoints individuals to serve in an acting capacity?
-CASE: Pimentel vs. Ermita - the appointment of an individual to perform in an acting
capacity is valid so long as the same is brought about by the exigency of public service
and the same is done in good faith.

Nepotism- the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by
giving them jobs.
Another limitation imposed other than sec 16 Art VII dealing with appointment

Control Power of Pres

Sec 17 The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
The 1st sentence of Sec 17 ordains that Pres has control over all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices and has no control over offices under Legislative and Judiciary depts as to not disturb the
separation of powers
All offices mentioned here are all under the Exec dept
What is vested on Pres here is power of control which is different from power of supervision
- Power of supervision is not a pervasive power because here a superior merely oversees the
performance of his subordinates of the latters functions and duties
- Power of control- the superior has the power to command the subordinate to perform and act. In
like manner that here, the superior can direct the undoing of an act by the subordinate. The superior
has the power to substitute his judgment for that of the subordinate. In fact in the case of Araneta vs
Gatmaitan, SC ordained that if what is granted is the power of control then the superior can perform
and act which can be performed by a subordinate. What happened in this case there was a law
enacted by congress empowering then secretary of DOA and Natural resources to promulgate rules
dealing with troll fishing but Pres Magsaysay took it upon himself to promulgate such rules and that
was questioned. According to the Petitioner the one authorized by Congress was not Pres but the
 Secretary of DOA. But SC disagreed, according to the SC the Pres has the power of control over
subordinate stating that what may be validly performed by the subordinate would likewise be
performed by the Pres because power of control includes the power to perform and act which can be
validly performed by a subordinate.
- Power of control also entails the Pres to reshuffle his cabinet members. In the time of Ramos he
directed all cabinet ministers to tender the courtesy resignations
- Pres has both control and supervision
- Pres through power of Control has the power to reorganize the different offices in the exec dept as
was ruled in the case of Malaria employees and workers association vs. Romulo.
- While pres has power of control over executive branches, what he has over the LGUs is only the
power of supervision because under Secs 4 and 16 of Art X, it is clear that LGUs enjoy local
autonomy. That is why in the case of DOLE vs COA, our SC disapproved the action of the dept of
budget and management under the office of the Pres in decreasing the allowances granted by
the city of Mandaue to the RTC judges in mandaue. Accdg to the SC the Pres cant subsutitute his
judgment for that of City Council or the Mayor because what he has over them is the power of
supervision
- A similar conclusion was obtained in Pimentel vs Aguirre where SC said that Pres cant withhold
the ERA allotted to the various LGUs because he only had the power of supervision over them.
- Under the LGC the Pres has the power to suspend or discipline and erring provincial chief exec or
governor [Mayors and Governors; Rama and Garcia]
As much as Pres has power of control we also adhere to the alter ego principle
- Enunciates the doctrine that the various officers of the different executive and administrative
agencies are mere alter egos or projections of the Pres
- This alter ego principle is similar to the doctrine of political agency which likewise enunciates that
all various offices in the executive dept are adjuncts of the office of the Pres and the agents
thereof are but agents of the Pres, verily so their decisions and actions are considered to be
those of the Pres unless it was reversed by the Pres himself
- In the case of Lacson- Magallanes vs Pao our SC sustained the authority of the executive
secretary acting for and behalf of the Pres to reverse and overturn the ruling is seemingly a final
and executive decision of the DENR Sec because the rules governing a the time was that if the
decision of the debtor of lands is affirmed by the DENR Sec, then such decision would already
become final and executor and no further appeal could be taken thereon. But in this case a
further appeal was taken to the office of the Pres and the ruling of the DENR Sec was still
reviewed by the Executive Sec acting for and behalf of the Pres. The action of the Exec Sec was
questioned because the rule says that the decision had already attained finality but the SC said
 that Exec Sec was acting in behalf of the Pres and the Pres has the power of control so he can no
doubt reverse the ruling of the DENR Sec.
The term laws in the second sentence of section 17 art VII should not be given a restrictive
interpretation therein because the laws enacted by Congress would include judicial decisions rendered by
SC would form part of the law of the land, it also includes treaties, administrative regulations and even
ordinances issued by local governing bodies.
- This provision was seemingly innocent in its face but was pivotal in resolving the case of Lagman
vs Ochoa. In this case there was this issue concerning the creation by Pnoy of the Phil. Truth
commission that was to be chaired by retired Chief Justice Davide it was questioned by Lagman
for the reason that according to Lagman, the Pres had no power to create a public office because
the power to create a public office according to the petitioner is lodged with Congress because
creation of such office would entail public expenditures and Congress having the power of the
purse has this power. But respondent argued that Pres could create a public office pursuant to
the provisions of the Admin Code because under this the Pres can reorganize the different offices
in the executive branch. But SC said respondents reliance on Admin Code is not tenable because
nowhere in that code which the President can create an office. According to the SC in
implementing a valid reorganization plan the Pres may abolish and office but not to create one
according to the Admin Code. But in the case of Lagman vs Ochoa our SC said that Pnoy had the
power to create the Phil truth commission by virtue of the second sentence of sec 17 art VII
because the thrust in the creation of that Commission was to see to it that the previous
administration had faithfully complied with the laws of the land. In the case of Lagman the SC
also said that the commission should also look into the previous administrations of Ramos, etc
and not only Arroyos admin or else it would be violative of the Equal protection clause. The
investiagation of Arroyo was enshrined in Executive Order no. 1.
- The ruling in Lagman is important because it authorized the Pres to create and office under the
executive department through sec 17 art VII but the creation of the Truth Commision run afoul
to the equal protection clause. But Pnoy could have circumvented that decision by amending
Exec Order no. putting a letter s after the word administration but he didnt do it because he
was narrow minded and prideful (opinion of Atty. Galeon)
Sec 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 any 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 the 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.

Enumerates the military power of the Pres

Powers granted to the Pres are graduated. Starting with the benign power then onto the more serious
powers
Benign power granted under sec 18 is that of the installing the Pres as Commander in Chief of AFP.
- All in furtherance in Sec 3 Art II providing that civilian authority is superior military
- Even if pres has no military background he/she is still COC
The Pres whenever he feels it is necessary may call out the AFP to suppress lawless violence and this
emanates from his being the COC of AFP
In the case of Corona vs. Salandone? [di ko sure sa name kay wa siya ni cite ug GR number nya dili nako
makit.an sa net ] the SC said owing to his power being the COC of AFP the Pres has the power to create
military tribunals or military commissions but these organizations would only have jurisdictions over the
military, it has no jurisdiction over civilians
The calling out Power of Pres-refer to IBP vs Zamora, is perfectly allowed under sec 18
Pursuant political powers as the COC of the AFP in the case of Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary, SC upheld
the authority of the President to declare a state of national emergency or state of rebellion but as it was
 ruled in case of David vs Arroyo, even when the Pres declares a state of national emergency or state of
rebellion, no new powers are conferred on the Pres and cannot exercise ipso facto emergency powers
absent a proper delegation of powers by Congress
Confers more or less serious powers on the Pres in the form of declaring Martial law and suspending the
privilege the writ of habeas corpus not the filing or petition of such
- meaning to say that if your girlfriend is captured by the military you can still file a petition for the
writ of habeas corpus notwithstanding the suspension of the privilege but the writ may be returned
unserved once there is already declaration of a suspension of such writ. You can still file the petition and
the court may still issue only that the writ may not be enforced if there is a suspension
- when Pres declares martial law this declaration would be implemented all throughout the Phil
because upon his discretion he could declare it on one part of the Phil e.g. Gloria implemented Martial
law in Mindanao after Maguindanao masscare
- declaration of Martial law under the 1987 Consti is nothing but a procalamation that the Pres
may call out the armed forces to suppress rebellion or invasion.
No new powers or offices created during Martial Law because there are safeguards or safety nets
implemented in sec 18 such as:
- Declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may only be had if there
is rebellion or invasion and public safety requires the same
- Any such declaration and suspension is good only for 60 days
- Within 48 hours of such declaration and suspension the Pres has to submit a report to Congress
personally or in writing and if the congress is not in session it is mandated under sec 18 to
convene without need of call, the purpose of which is for congress to review or revoke such
declaration and suspension and which revocation cant be overturned by Pres but there is a
catch, upon the initiative of congress by majority votes of all members of congress in joint
session, such declaration and suspension may be extended and for one reason or the other the
framers of the 1987 constitution did not provide the time frame within which such extension
may be granted so all Pres has to do is lobby with congress for an extension. Majority votes of all
members of congress in joint session in order to avoid deadlock. If the voting is separately then
there might be a deadlock between HOR and Senate so there might be no meeting of minds so it
would be hard for congress to revoke declaration of martial law and suspension of writ of
privilege of habeas corpus
- Under the present constitution the SC is vested with the power to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus upon filing of a petition by any citizen of the republic. So rule of legal standing is relaxed
- In the past there were conflicting decisions whether the SC could to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
- The 1st case, (Montenegro case), the SC did not have the power to review because such issue
partook the nature of a political question
- In the 2nd case of Lansang vs Garcia our SC it had the power to review with the power of judicial
review
- In the 3rd Garcia Padilla vs Enrile SC reverted back to Montenegro
- But now under sec 18 it is now crystal clear the SC has the power to review such cases
- There is already a time frame for the rendition of the decision, it has to be rendered 30 days from
the filing of the petition
- Declaration of martial will not suspend the operation of the constitution and not supplant the
functioning of the courts and congress and not confer military courts jurisdiction over the
civilians and declaration of martial doesnt carry with it the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, there has to be another declaration and if there was a suspension of such writ
it would only be applicable to persons charged with rebellion, or any offenses directly connected
with invasion
- Even if there was a suspension of the writ then persons arrested must be charged in court with 3
days following their arrest, otherwise they shall be released from custody
- In the past Marcos would issue an ASO(arrest and search order) which would arrest people
without a warrant/warrantless searches and seizures but now under the 1987 consti there can be
no warrantless searches but there may be warrantless arrest during martial law and suspension
of the writ only when the person arrested is suspected of commiting the crime of rebellion
because rebellion is a continuing arrest such that if a person arrested he is deemed to have been
arrested, inflagrante delicto in the act of committing a crime because rebellion is a continuing
offense and under sec5 of Rull 113 there may be warrantless arrest when the person committing
a crime is inflgrante directo but he still has to be charged 3 days following his arrest
- Under sec 13 of art III which provides that persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The
right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required
Sec 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.

Reprieve- postponement of sentence or penalty (e.g. pregnant woman, sick people)

Commutation- reduction of sentence
Pardon-exonerated from criminal liability, you will not suffer the penalty given by the court; given by the
president; is a form of executive clemency; granted for commission of ordinary crimes by individuals;
individual acceptance is also required; looks forward [meaning obliterates only the present crime]; must
be done after conviction

- May be classified as plenary or partial pardon

- Plenary pardon- granted whereby main and accessory penalties are wiped out
- Partial- only main penalty is wiped out
- May also be classified as absolute or conditional
- Absolute- no conditions imposed
- Conditional- conditions imposed
- In the case of Erap it was a conditional pardon but he was allowed to run because in the grant of
pardon in the whereas clause, there was no condition
- The performance of conditions is only co-terminus with the period of the penalty and once the
conditions are broken, he will be made to serve his sentence and he will be prosecuted Art 159 of
the RPC [violation of pardon]
- 2 rulings Escuelas vs Provincial Warden of Bohol and Sumulong vs Gonzales where SC said a
mere commission of another offense is sufficient enough to revoke the pardon granted on the
person, conviction of the 2nd offense is not necessary; pardonee has supposedly committed a
violation of law and is enough to revoke the pardon

Parole- released from custody but is still under custody of the law, granted by the parole application
board; person had already served the minimum penalty
Probation- granted by the court if penalty is not imprisonment more than 6 years and that he has not
been convicted before;
Forfeiture- pertaining to properties or land and properties from ill-gotten wealth
Amnesty- granted to those committing political offenses and is usually made on a group of persons;
individual acceptance is not required; requires concurrence of the majority of the members of congress
whereas said concurrence is not required from pardon; looks backward and erases the crimes of a person
 making it that he/she was never convicted at all; does not need conviction of the person in order to be
granted.
Limitations on grant of executive clemency

- Amnesty may not be granted to people who are impeached from office, but why was it that Erap
was pardoned? It was because there was an impeachment case against him but it was not
terminated against him because the prosecutors walked out and he was not pardoned not
because he was impeached but because he was convicted of plunder
- Amnesty requires concurrence of the majority vote of members of congress
- If person violates election offense it needs consent or concurrence of COMELEC
- Pardon cant be granted to people who is guilty of legislative or civil contempt
- Rendition of fines and forfeitures may not be extended to include civil liability because it is in
favor of the aggrieved party nor can it be extended to judicial costs because that is for the
judiciary
- Even where one is granted is absolute pardon it will not serve to restore the forfeit of public
office except where such grant of such absolute pardon is anchored on pure innocence of the
person such as in the case of Monsanto vs Factoran where a public employee got convicted for
malversation of public funds and was pardoned. She claimed that she should be reinstated back
to her position because of the pardon, but SC said except when the grant of pardon is anchored
on pure innocence then the person is not entitled to be restored to the office that he once held
because pardon only looks forward, it does not all together obliterate the offense. The SC said
that the person may reapply for her position but there is no guarantee that she will be
readmitted.

Sec 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 decisions 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.

The Pres may contract loans but there is a requirement on prior concurrence of the monetary board of
the Phil

- The monetary board is a unit of the Central Bank

- The board is directed or mandated within 30 days from the end of each quarter of the year to
submit a report to congress on it decision on loans which have the effect of increasing our
indebtedness
Sec 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.

Treaty making power of pres and power of concurrence of the Senate were all confirmed in the case of
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary where what happened was Erap signed and ratified the Rome Statute but
the office of the Pres did not transmit the signed treaty to the Senate for concurrence so Pimentel being
the head of the senate filed a case to compel the office of the President to transmit the signed treaty for
deliberation or approval or disapproval, but SC said treaty making power is vested only on Pres and what
is vested on Senate is merely concurrence such that where a Pres ratifies and signs a treaty, the senate
cant compel the Pres to transmit the signed treaty to the Senate but even if president already signs the
treaty it doesnt become effective unless there is concurrence of the members of the senate

Sec 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.

Already discussed before in the last topic

Budget proposal had to be transmitted to the HOR because under sec 24 of Art VI it si the HOR which shall
initiate the enactment of a general appropriation bill
Consider also the provision of sec 25 art VI where congress cant increase the budget prepared by the
President though it can decrease the same but not including the budget of the judiciary

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

Refers to the SONA

Though this section used the owrd shall indicating it is of mandatory character, the Pres has the
discretion whether or not to deliver the SONA. He cant be compelled to deliver such

*Other provisions highlighting the powers of the Pres not found in Art VII
Sec 15 Art VI. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session,
unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Pres may call special session of congress

Sec 26 Art VI (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.

Pres may certify the urgency of the bill

Sec 27 p1 Art VI 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.

Highlights the pres veto power

Sec 23 Art VI p2 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.

Sec 28 ART VI 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.

Sec 2 p2 Art IX-C Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

The pres may give consent to the deputization by the COMELEC to certain public authorities to serve
during election time

Sec 2 p8 Art IX-C Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or
the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its
directive, order, or decision.

In the case of Marcos vs. Manglapos the SC ruled that the powers of the Pres are more than the sum of
the powers enumerated in the Constitution. SC said that the Pres nay exercise residual power in the
sense that the Pres may exercise such powers although not presented by the constitution or by law for as
long as said powers are characterized as executive in character because what happened here was that
when Marcos died in Hawaii the heirs of Marcos wanted to bring his body to the Phil it was prohibited by
Mangalpos acting as the Exec Secretary acting upon orders of the Pres. This was questioned by heirs of
Marcos because according to them there is simply no law barring the entry of the remains of a person
especially if he/she was a Filipino citizen. But SC said could do that because she could exercise residual
 powers and being the chief executive it was her duty to see to it that the peace of order of the country
would not be disturbed. Cory was afraid that if Marcos body was returned, it would wreak havoc

Judicial Department

Article VIII

Sec 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.

Mentions that there shall only be one Supreme Court so from this provision it is safe to infer that the only
court created by the Constitution is the SC the other courts are merely considered as statutory courts in
the sense that they are just created by law by Congress
- In the case of Vargas vs. Rilloraza our SC nullified the provision of the Old Peoples court Act
which provided that in hearing collaboration cases pertaining to traitors, the justices of the SC
who served during the Japanese occupation should inhibit themselves from handling the case
and shall be replaced by ad hoc members of the SC to be appointed by the Pres from the COA or
court of first instance but SC said replacing these members would create a situation where there
is another court other than the SC hence it was invalid because this provision was also included
in previous constitutions
Then the courts have the power to decide cases and now they can also exercise power of judicial review
which is articulated in sec 1 p2 Art VIII

Sec 2 Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of 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.

RA 7169 which congress apportions the jurisdiction of the various courts

- Jurisdiction in the sense that this defines the cases or enumerates the cases that may be taken
cognizance of each particular court
Power of congress is subject to limitations:
- Under this section, congress cannot deprive the SC of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated on
sec 5 Art VIII
 - Under sec 30 Art VI which provides in essence that congress cant increase the appellate
jurisdiction of the SC without its consent or concurrence
Who shall appoint the justices and judges of the SC and lower courts?
- Answered under Sec 9 Art VIII which provides that the justices and judges are to be appointed by
the Pres from a list of 3 nominees to be prepared by the judicial and bar council for every vacant
position. These appointments under said section need no confirmation on the Commission of
Appointments in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary
- As for judges of the lower courts such appointments shall be made by the Pres 90 days from the
submission of the list of nominees by the judicial and bar council
- The Judicial and Bar council is a body which is tasked with the selection of aspiring judges or
justices and is composed of ex oficio members as well as regular members
o Ex oficio members consist of Chief Justice as ex oficio chairman and DOJ secretary and a
representative of Congress as ex oficio members
o In the case of Chavez vs. JBC, wherein there were 2 representatives of JBC coming from
congress. one from Senate and one from HOR and accdg to Chavez there must only be
one representative from congress but congress argued that as they are a bicameral
committee 2 representatives are necessary. But SC disagreed by saying that under Sec 8
p1 of Art VIII it is very clear that there shall only be one ex oficio member from congress
o Other component of JBC are the regular members who are to be appointed by Pres
which are the representative of the IBP[serve for 4 yrs], professor of law[serve at term
of 3 yrs], a retired justice of the SC[serve for 2 years] and a representative of a private
sector[serve for one year] with the confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. All
these members may be reappointed by the Pres
o So appointment of judges and justices are devoid of any political influence because
there is the selecting body [JBC] but if we look at the composition of the JBC we can say
that appointments of judges and justices are not really devoid of political influence
because other than the Chief justice of the SC all the other members are politically
affiliated or affiliated with the Pres like the DOJ Secretary which is an ally of the Pres and
the representative of congress who may come from a political party and regular
members of JBC are appointed by the Pres so you can expect that they will comply with
the requests of the Pres so its not really correct to say that the appointments are
devoid of political influence and before there can be appointment from the 3 candidates
there is always the endorsement of the congressman or district rep
 o Attys proposal: judges of the lower courts should be chosen by the SC to avoid any
political influence and the 3 nominees should be selected by the different IBP chapters
because lawyers know the true competence of a certain person
The Pres however cannot assign the judges and justices to perform quasi judicial or administrative
functions because this is prohibited by section 12 art VIII
- In the case of Macalintal vs Presidential Electoral Tribunal where Macalintal questioned the
provision of sec 4 p7 of Art VII making the SC the sole judge of all election contests by the Pres
and VP because Macalintal said by doing that the SC are basically performing quasi judicial
function but accdg to the SC when SC acts as PET it is not merely performing a quasi judicial
function but a purely judicial function and you cant declare of sec 4 p7 of Art VII as
unconstitutional when it is part and parcel of the constitution itself if we were to accept the view
of Macalintal then we would also have to nullify sec 17 Art VI designating 3 justices of SC as
members of SET or HRET
Sec 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.
Once a person is appointed as a judge or justice then he is entitled to receive his salary and to preserve
the independence of the judiciary it is mandated under sec 10 Art VIII that during their tenure the
different judges and justices may not be decreased by congress otherwise it would undermine
independence and integrity of the judiciary
- Of interest are the cases of Perfecto vs Meer and Endencia vs David where SC ruled that the
salaries of the justices and judges are exempted from wittholding taxes because accdg to the SC
to allow such deduction would be to allow a dimunition of their salaries in violation of the fiscal
autonomy of the SC
o But the SC still made such a ruling even if the President and Vice President and the
salaries of congress were subjected to such income tax deduction such that under Art 15
sec 6 of the 1973 consti it was expressly provided therein that no salaries of a public
officer including the salaries of the Constitutional Commissions shall be exempt from
taxation
o But under the advent of the 1973 constitution no doubt the salaries of the judiciary are
no longer withheld from exemption of withholding taxes but in the 1987 this was not
reiterated but in the case of Nitafan vs. Commission of Internal Revenue the SC said that
their salaries are not exempt from withholding tax
In fixing judicial fees such as filing fees and judicial costs. The same is however ruled by SC that it is in
within the power of the SC
 - There has been an exponential increase in the rate of filing fees especially when it comes to
appeal before 500 now 5000
- Filing fee was based on assessed value of property but now its based on zonal value of property
which is way higher than the assessed value
o Accdg to atty G. in order to circumvent the rules just file a few properties and after filing
and paying the fees we will amend the complaint to include the other properties, if at all
it is seen we will tell the court that we will pay at another time
o So now salaries of judges are high. Income of judges not below 100k

Of interest is the case when Commision on Audit requested the SC to submit a formula for the appraised
value of the properties acquired by the retired justices of SC and COA because there is a practice in SC and
CA where the retired members will be allowed to purchase the personal properties of the Judicial dept
that were used by them during their incumbency at a lesser cost so the commission conducted a post
audit where the evaluation of the personal properties were far below the appraised value of these
properties so the commission requested the SC to justify the lower value cost of these properties but SC
ignored the request of the commission stating that to adhere to the commissions request would
undermine the fiscal autonomy of the judiciary

Sec 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 divisions 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.

At present we only have 3 divisions with 5 members per division but under the constitution there may be
3, 5, or 7 members
Any vacancy occurring the SC shall be filled up within 90 day from such vacancy

-the law which SC uses to uphold the validity of the appointment of Corona in the case of De Castro vs JBC
 Sc may sit en banc or in division. The question is what cases are to be decided by banc or division?

- En banc:
o a case, where what is involved is the validity or 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
regulation
o Another situation is when it is supposedly decided by the division but the required votes
is not obtained because as a rule if a case is to be decided by the division of the SC then
it shall be decided by the majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon but in no case shall there be a
decision without the concurrence of three members thereof so if this is not obtained
may be forwarded by the SC
o A case which involves the overturning of a principle of law or doctrinal ruling previously
enunciated by the SC/ reversal of a decision
o A case involving disciplinary actions especially when it involves dismissal from service of
the judges of the lower courts
o An election case involving the President and VP pursuant to section 4 paragraph 7 of Art
VII
o All other cases may be decided by SC divisions

Sec 5 The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) 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:

(a) 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.

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

(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(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.

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

(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
underprivileged. 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.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Last arbiter of legal dispute because its prime duty is to decide cases in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction or in the exercise of it s appellate jurisdiction

- Original jurisdiction- the cases involved therein are those which can be filed directly with the SC.
Cases involved here are those mentioned in sec 5 p1 art VIII like cases involving the ambassadors,
consuls other public ministers and over petitions certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus
o Certiorari is a remedy under ROC where there is an abuse of discretion committed by
the respondent; governed by Rule 65 of ROC
o Prohibition seeks to prohibit the performance of an act which is illegal; governed by
Rule 65 of ROC
o Mandamus seeks the performance of an act which is mandated by law to be performed;
governed by Rule 65 of ROC
o Quo warranto is a proceeding involving a contest for a particular position; governed by
Rule 66 of Rules of Civil procedure
o Habeas corpus is the production of a body that is detained; under rule 102 of ROC
o Appellate jurisdiction- commenced before the lower courts but were elevated on appeal
to the SC
- Appellate jurisdiction: these cases originated from the lower courts and is enunciated is
paragraph 2 of this section
o Basis of the SC in ruling in the case of Ynot where after all lower courts may exercise this
power of judicial review only that their decisions may be reviewed on appeal or on
certiorari by the SC
o Of interest is the case of British American Tobacco vs Camacho where our SC ordained
that the Court of Tax appeals although it is part of the mainstream of judicial hierarchy
has no power to decide the validity or invalidity of the law. In that case the SC ruled that
the Court of Tax Appeals is merely a quasi judicial body but this ruling is contrary to
previous rulings of the SC where it held that CTA is not just a quasi judicial body but a
court of law but the controlling doctrine is BAT vs Camacho
o Another case falling under the appellate jurisdiction is a case where what is at issue is
validity of any tax imposed assessment or toll or any penalty imposed thereon as
provided for under sec 5 p2 sub paragraph 2 of Art VIII
o Another case falling under the appellate jurisdiction is a case where what is at issue is
the jurisdiction of the lower court
o Another case falling under the appellate jurisdiction is a case where what is at issue is a
criminal case where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. Under
paragraph 2 there should be automatic review of criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher
o But in the case of People vs Mateo the SC ruled that the review of cases where the
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher must first be reviewed by CA before it may be
reviewed by SC. This ruling is not in congruence with sec 5 p2 because under this it
would appear that the review is automatic before the SC but the SC did a Pontius Pilate
and told them to go the CA but accdg to Atty G. that ruling is more favorable to the
accused because the case is reviewed twice so there might be a chance of reversal and
conformably under the ruling of the Mateo case sec 3 p3 of rule 122 of ROC has now
been amended that there shall be automatic review of criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher by the CA before it may go to the SC so even if
accused does not file an appeal it will still be automatically reviewed
o Another case is wherein what is involved is a pure question of law but if it is a mixed
question of law and fact the same must be first reviewed by the CA
o Of interest is the case of Calano vs Cruz where under the old election code toward cases
decided by RTC involving municipal officials would automatically become final and
executor. In this case there was an appeal that was stated where the RTC dismissing a
case involving a mayoral candidate and the recourse was had before the SC and was
assailed as being contrary to the provision of the election code but SC said that in as
much as the case involves a pure question of law the SC could not be deprived of its
appellate jurisdiction to review the case so Congress is powerless to rob SC of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases mentioned in Sec 5 Art VIII
 Paragraph 1 used the term original jurisdiction and not exclusive original jurisdiction

- Significance of this is because it tells us that these cases should only be filed with the SC but as
worded it used original jurisdiction and that tells us that SC does not have exclusive jurisdiction
on petitions of certiorari mandamus, prohibition etc. because jurisdiction over these cases are
likewise shared with the CA and RTC but when the issue is of paramount importance to the
republic or is of national interest then it must be filed directly with the SC

Under paragraph 3 the SC may 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.
Under p 4 the SC may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

- This holds true especially in criminal cases If only to see to it that the prospective witnesses
would not be cowed in coming out and testifying to the case
- In criminal law venue is jurisdictional, so it has to be tried in the case where the offense is
committed but under p4 the venue may be changed such that in the case of Ampatuan where
the offense was committed in Maguindanao the trial was heard in Manila and it is allowed
because there was a directive coming from the SC allowing the change of venue

Rule making power under paragraph 5 the SC has rule making power that it can accommodate the rules
for the protection and enforcement among others for Constitutional rights and that is why we have the
rules on petitions writ of amparo governing and rules regarding the writ of habeas data. These are
promulgated by SC not by congress which is justified by the rule making power of the SC

- The SC may also promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice, admission to the practice of
law, procedures before the courts, admission to the IBP and rules for providing legal assistance
especially to legal indigents. These rules on civil procedure are promulgated by SC and not by
Congress. Congress just divides and apportions the jurisdiction of the various lower courts but
the ROC regarding pleading and practice are promulgated by the SC
- Of interest is the case of in re: Edillon because under the rules promulgated by the SC once a
person passes the bar exam he becomes an automatic member of the IBP so you have to pay the
 mandated IBP dues. Edillon passed the bar but didnt want to pay the dues. The SC said if you
wont join IBP you cant practice law
- Another case which is of interest is in the matter of Garcia where a Spanish lawyer wanted to
practice law in the Phil and he invoked the provisions in the treaty between Phil and Spain
whereby Phil lawyers could practice law in spain and by reason of reciprocity, Spanish lawyers
can do the same. But SC you cant do that because it is only the SC not the executive department
which can prescribe rules in admission to the practice but this power has a limitation under p5
wherein 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
o Atty Gs observation: in respect of circular of SC in respect to violation of BP 22 it would
appear that SC has violated this provision because BP 22 the penalty imposed for
violation thereof is imprisonment and fine but under SC circular the SC prodded with the
judges in not imposing penalty of imprisonment except where the person convicted is a
habitual offender but no one questioned this

Under p5 the SC may invalidate and review the rules promulgated by the various quasi-judicial bodies and
administrative circulars. So the SC may declare rules of NLRC invalid
SC has the power to appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.

Sec 6 The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Thats why in once case the PCIJ[Phil center for investigative journalism] demanded it be furnished
with copies of the SALN of the justices of SC and CA. The justices didnt want to furnish their SALN to
the PCIJ. SC said it would be an intrusion against sec 6. SC has final say on when it will release their
SALN. But in congress it is a matter of public right that SALN of Congress and Pres and VP but as for
the justices it cant be done without the consent of the SC
Cases involving offenses judges of the lower courts and personnel thereof in connection with their
performance of their functions has to be filed with the SC and not with the ombudsman as ruled in
Caoibes vs Ombudsman
- but in the case of Garcia vs. Meero our SC ruled that where the case leveled against the
judge has nothing to do with his official duties then that case may be prosecuted by other
bodies without filing it 1st with the SC. The case here was reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide
Sec 7 Art VIII 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.

Highlights qualifications justices of the SC and other lower courts [e.g. COA, Sandiganbayan]
In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod where the practice of law was defined by the SC must not be confined
solely to conducting litigation. It is enough that one applies for the application of laws. In the dissenting
opinion of Cruz that the only possible exception to the ponentia or the opinion of the majority as a lawyer
who earned his income by teaching ballroom dancing with illicit intention because accdg to Atty G. there
is hardly any activity which does not pertain to the practice of law, even ones performance of marital
obligations calls for the performance of law otherwise non performance would give rise to Psychological
incapacity
These qualifications cant be modified by congress because it was supplied by the constitution itself
But as for the judges of lower courts like RTC their qualifications may be prescribed by congress but there
is a minimum requirement that he has to be a citizen[need not be natural born] of the Phil and must be a
member of the IBP
Common requirement that all judges and justices must be of proven reputation, integrity, probity, and
independence.

Sec 11 The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until
they reached 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 a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.

Set the age limit and restriction to serve office but even before 70 yrs of age, if the person is already
exhibiting some kind of symptoms of imbecility, senility or insanity then he may be retired from duty
In the past the retirement age was 65 but now changes at 70 because it was observed that especially of
men are like wine that get better in age (opinion of Justice Cruz}
Sec 13 The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall
be reached in consultation before the case is 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
courts.

Observed strictly by the lower courts

Sec 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 therefor.

Must be done so that parties may be properly informed or appraised and also in filing an appeal it will be
easier on appellant to pinpoint errors in the facts or in the conclusions therein
If facts and law are not mentioned in the judgment and what is said is merely a denial of petition for lack
of merit. Does this satisfy sec 14? SC said if it lacks merit then it says it all
SC needs to just find fault in arguments to justify a denial

Sec 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
pending, 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.

A case is submitted for decision once the last and final pleading thereof has already been filed
So as worded in this section the cases have to be decided in the periods specified therein by using the
shall indicating that it is mandatory
- But in Marcelino vs. Cruz the SC said that these periods are not really mandatory but
merely directory
- Even in the section itself, it is stated that even if the period for making a decision had
already expired that will not prevent the court from rendering a decision because the court
still has to render a decision beyond the period only that the judge has to explain and
justify his delay and may be administratively liable