SAGUISAG VS.

OCHOA
FACTS
Petitioners allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the U.S., claiming that the instrument violated
2

multiple constitutional provisions. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement authorizes the
U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the
country.
ISSUES:

A. Whether the essential requisites for judicial review are present

B. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities

C. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as
with existing laws and treaties

HELD:

specific safeguards laid down by the Court when it exercises its power of judicial review. Guided by
105

these pillars, it may invoke the power only when the following four stringent requirements are
satisfied: (a) there is an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus standi; (c) the
question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality
is the lis mota of the case. the performance of an official act by the Executive Department that led to
the entry into force of an executive agreement was sufficient to satisfy the actual case or controversy
requirement.

that petitioners have presented serious constitutional issues that provide ample justification for the
Court to set aside the rule on standing. The transcendental importance of the issues presented here
is rooted in the Constitution itself

We therefore rule that this case is a proper subject for judicial review.

the President - by ratifying, thru her deputies, the non-surrender agreement - did nothing
more than discharge a constitutional duty and exercise a prerogative that pertains to her
office. (Emphases supplied)

Indeed, in the field of external affairs, the President must be given a larger measure of
authority and wider discretion, subject only to the least amount of checks and restrictions
under the Constitution

As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it
purports to implement.
Estrada vs. Desierto

FACTS:

In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, alleged that he had personally
given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank account known as “Jose
Velarde”. Singson’s allegation culminated in the House of Representatives’ filing of an
impeachment case against Estrada on November 13, 2000. On January 20, the Supreme
Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively
resigned his post”. Noon of the same day, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in
the presence of the crowd at EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines. Also,
Estrada released a letter saying he would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to
healing the nation. A heap of cases then succeeded Estrada’s leaving the palace, which he
countered by filing a peition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUES:

 petitions present a justiciable controversy, whether petitioner Estrada is a President

on leave while respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.
 In the negative and on the assumption that petitioner is still President, whether he is
immune from criminal prosecution.

HELD:

 The petition presents a justiciable controversy since the 1987 Constitution has
narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of
judicial review of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable but also 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 government

What leaps to the eye from these irrefutable facts is that both houses of Congress
have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. Implicitly clear in that
recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada. Is no longer
temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner's claim of inability.

 We reject his argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first
be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner
Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his
loss of the presidency. Indeed, on February 7, 2001, the Senate passed Senate
Resolution No. 83 "Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio." 109 Since,
the Impeachment Court is now functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand
that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted
BIRAOGO vs. THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1 establishing Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30,
2010. PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary task to
investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their
co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration, and to submit its finding
and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. Petitioners asked the Court to
declare it unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC from performing its functions.

ISSUES:
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and question E. O. No. 1;
2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of separation of powers by usurping the powers of Congress to
create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies and commissions;
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause.

1. The petition primarily invokes usurpation of the power of the Congress as a body to which they belong
as members. To the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so is the power of each member
thereof, since his office confers a right to participate in the exercise of the powers of that
institution.Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested
by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any
official action which, to their mind, infringes on their prerogatives as legislators. There are constitutional
issues in the petition which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and
weight as precedents

2. There will be no appropriation but only an allotment or allocations of existing funds already
appropriated. There is no usurpation on the part of the Executive of the power of Congress to
appropriate funds. There is no need to specify the amount to be earmarked for the operation of the
commission because, whatever funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be
the very source of the funds for the commission. The amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be
subject to existing auditing rules and regulations so there is no impropriety in the funding.

3. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers. If at all, the
investigative function of the commission will complement those of the two offices. The function of
determining probable cause for the filing of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be
with the DOJ and the Ombudsman. PTC’s power to investigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can
advise and guide the President in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and
enforcement of the laws of the land.

4. The PTC must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the authority to
investigate all past administrations.
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear
mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of
graft and corruption during the previous administration only. The intent to single out the previous
administration is plain, patent and manifest.