KJTU

ART VII - EXECUTIVE

E.1 TORRES VS. GONZALES

HELD: 1. The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a
conditional pardon are purely executive acts that are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

2. The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon,

and the proper consequences of such breach, may be either a purely executive act, not
subject to judicial scrutiny under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code.

E.2 MONSATO VS FACTORAN

HELD: A pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office although it
restores her eligibility for appointment to such office. While an absolute pardon relieves
a felon from all punitive consequences of his conviction, it does not erase the guilt.
Pardons look prospective. It does not amend the past. It merely forgives the felon but it
does not forget the felony committed.

E.3 LLAMAS VS ORBOS

ISSUE: WON the president has the power to grant executive clemency in
administrative cases?

HELD: The president can grant executive clemency based in Art. VII sec. 19 of the
constitution. The petitioner's contention that the president may only grant executive

clemency to criminal cases based on said provision is untenable because the Constitution

does not distinguish between cases as to when the executive clemency may be exercised
by the President, with the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. If the law does not
distinguish, we must not distinguish.
E.4 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION INC VS TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES
SECTION 21

ISSUE: Art 7 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.

HELD: Executive agreements are of two classes:

1) agreement made purely as executive acts affecting external relations and

independent of or needs no legislative authorization. (Presidential
Agreements) Sec 21 does not apply

2) agreement entered into in pursuance of acts of Congress,

(Congressional-Executive Agreements, apply Sec 21)

E.5 GONZALES VS HECHANOVA

HELD: Although the President may enter into executive agreements without previous
legislative authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which
is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.

He may not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly repealing the same through
an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said
laws.

Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts with
the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to the act of Congress.

E.6 VINUYA VS ROMULO

HELD: Under international law, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim
within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a
government to bring a claim on the individual’s behalf.

When this happens, in the eye of the international tribunal, the State is the sole
claimant.

ART VIII - JUDICIAL

E.7 SANTIAGO VS ROMULO

HELD: A judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers.

TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A TRIBUNAL OR BOARD EXERCISES JUDICIAL

FUNCTIONS;

1) there must be specific controversy involving rights of persons brought before a

tribunal for hearing and determination;

2) that the tribunal must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and
render a decision;

3) the tribunal must pertain to that branch of the sovereign which belongs to the judiciary
(or at least the not the legislative nor the executive)

PS. Judiciary would not interfere in literary contests, beauty contests, and similar
competitions as well as the Committee for Rating Honor Students in this case. Case eto ng
Sero Elem School. Hehe

E.8 NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE

FACTS: Noblejas was the commissioner of land registration.Under RA 1151, he is entitled
to the same compensation, emoluments, and privileges as those of a Judge of CFI.He
claims that he may be investigated only by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the
Supreme Court (in view of his having a rank equivalent to a judge)?

HELD: No. If the law had really intended to include the general grant of “rank and
privileges equivalent to Judges”, the right to be investigated and be suspended or
removed only by the Supreme Court, then such grant of privileges would be
unconstitutional, since it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers because it
would charge the Supreme Court with an administrative function of supervisory control
over executive officials, simultaneously reducing pro tanto, the control of the Chief Executive
over such officials.

E.9 DIRECTOR OF PRISONS VS. ANG CHO KIO

HELD: The matter of whether an alien who violated the law may remain or be deported is
a political question that should be left entirely to the President.

Deportation of aliens is a political question.

E.10 In re LAURETA

HELD: SC resolutions are beyond investigation from other departments of the

government because of separation of powers. The correctness of the SC decisions are
conclusive upon other branches of government.

E.10 ECHEGARY VS. SOJ

HELD: The constitutional provision granting the President the power to grant reprieves
cannot be interpreted as denying the power of the courts to control the enforcement of
their decisions after their finality. An accused who has been convicted by final judgment
still possesses collateral rights, and these can be claimed in a proper court. For instance,
a convict who becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in a
state of insanity. The suspension of death sentence is an exercise of judicial power.

E.11 KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO (PSCO & PGMC)

HELD: Only real parties in interest or those with standing, as the case may be, may invoke
the judicial power. (Locus Standi)

They may only be allowed to sue as concerned citizens if they raise constitutional
questions of transcendental importance.

Requisites of transcendental importance:

(1) Public funds are involved;

(2) Utter disregard for the constitution;

(3) Lack of party who can bring a suit.

E.12 FRANCISCO v. HREP

ISSUE: 2 impeachment cases against Davide and 7 SC Justice within the year.
HELD: The meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear, that once an
impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, another may not be
filed against the same official within a one year period following Article XI, Section 3(5)
of the Constitution. Only a few months have passed since the first impeachment. Few
months ≠ 1 year. Second impeachment unconstitutional. (Only 1 Impeachment case per
year)

Judicial Review

This Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the
government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution. Such power, as
explained Angara v. Electoal Commission, puts judicial power in this light: In cases of
conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several
departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. Aptly called the
“moderating power”, Justice Laurel (who penned Angara), is inherent in all courts.

Essential Requisites for Judicial Review:

1. Standing/Locus Standi - 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.

2. Ripeness and Prematurity - "it is a prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the picture."
Reactive dapat. May actual case na.

3. Justiciability – duty of courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable or enforceable. Corollary, courts cannot entertain, much less decide,
hypothetical questions.

4. Lis mota (cause of suit or action) - It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an

issue assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act should be avoided whenever
possible. Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable
and is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy.