Article VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

EXECUTIVE POWER It is the legal and political functions of the President involving the exercise of discretion. It is vested in the President of the Philippines. It is the power to enforce and administer laws. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. (Section 1, Article VII) In National Electrification Administration vs. CA, G.R. No. 143481, February 15, 2002, the President is vested with the power to execute, administer, and carry out laws into practical operation. Executive power, then, is the power of carrying out the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. The President may not veto a law enacted thirty-five (35) years before his or her term of office. Neither may the President set aside or reverse a final and executory judgment of the Supreme Court through the exercise of veto power. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)

PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT
Q U A L I F IC A T I O NS 1. Natural-born citizen; 2. Registered voter; 3. Able to read and write; 4. At least 40 years of age on the day of election; and 5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election. TERMOFOFFICE Six (6) years DISQUALIFICATIONS 1. Not eligible for any re-election; 2. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than 4 years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time (Sec. 4, Art. VII); 1. Shall not serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms (Sec. 4, Art. VII) General Disqualifications* a. One who has been declared incompetent or insane by competent authority; b. One who has been sentenced by final judgment for: vi. Subversion; vii. Insurrection; viii. Rebellion; ix. Any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of not more than 18 months; or x. A crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon or granted amnesty (Section 12, BP 881Omnibus Election Code) INHIBITIONS AND PROHIBITIONS

1. Shall not receive any other emolument from the government or any other source (Section 6, Article VII); 2. Shall not hold any other office or employment unless otherwise provided in the Constitution; 3. Shall not practice any other profession; 4. Shall not participate in any business; 5. Shall not be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government, including GOCCs; 6. Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct of office; 7. Shall avoid nepotism. (Section 13, Article VII) PRIVILEGES 1. Official residence; 2. Salary is determined by law and not to be decreased during his tenure (Section 6, Article VII); 3. Immunity from suit for official acts. 1. Salary shall not be decreased during his tenure; 2. No need for Commission on Appointment confirmation for Cabinet post (Section 3, Article VII) CANVASSING BOARD Congress (Senate and House of Representatives); in case of tie, Congress by majority vote shall select. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Supreme Court (en banc) REMOVAL Impeachment only ELECTION (Section 4, Article VII) Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. Even after Congress has adjourned its regular session, it may continue to perform this constitutional duty of canvassing the presidential and vice-presidential election results without need of any call for special session by the President. The joint public session of both Houses of Congress convened by express directive of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to canvass the votes for and proclaim the newly-elected President and Vice-President has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of canvassers has completed its functions it is rendered functus officio. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the votes cast for President and VP, G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004) There is no constitutional or statutory basis for COMELEC to undertake a separate and an unofficial tabulation of results, whether manually or electronically. By conducting such unofficial tabulation, the COMELEC descends to the level of a private organization, spending public funds for the purpose. This not only violates the exclusive prerogative of NAMFREL to conduct an unofficial count, but also taints the integrity of

the envelopes containing the election returns and the election returns themselves. Thus, if the COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of the votes cast for the President and VP, the COMELEC is, with more reason, prohibited from making an unofficial canvass of said votes. (Brillantes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June 15, 2004) Immunity from suit: After his tenure, the President cannot invoke immunity from suit for civil damages arising out of acts done by him while he was President which were not performed in the exercise of his official duties. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2001) Rules on Succession: a. V acancy at the beginning of the term i. Death or permanent disability of the President-elect: VP-elect shall become President ii. President-elect fails to qualify: VP-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified iii. President shall not have been chosen: VP-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. iv. No President and VP chosen nor shall have qualified, or both shall died or become permanently disabled: The President of the Senate, or in case of his disability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a VP shall have been chosen and qualified. In the event of inability of the officials mentioned, Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or VP shall have qualified. At 10 oclock in the morning of the 3rd day after the vacancy occurs, Congress shall convene without need of a call, and within 7 days enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a VP to be held not earlier than 45 nor later than 60 days from the time of such call. The bill shall be deemed certified and shall become a law upon its approval on 3rd reading by Congress. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential election. b. V acancy during the term i. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President: VP shall become the President Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001, the SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacaan Palace. In the press release containing his final statement, 1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President; 2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process (he did not say that he was leaving due to any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as soon as the disability disappears); 3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them as President (without doubt referring to the past opportunity);

4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come in the same service of the country; 5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. The Court declared that the elements of a valid resignation are: 1. Intent to resign; 2. Act of relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left the Palace. Intent to resignmust be accompanied by act of relinquishmentact or omission before, during and after January 20, 2001. Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing material relevant issuesPresident Estrada is deemed to have resigned constructive resignation Resignationmay be written, oral, express, or implied, for as long as it is clear it must be given legal effect. Vacancy in the office of the VP: Whenever there is vacancy in the Office of the VP during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a VP from among the Members of the Senate and the HOR who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Section 9, Article VII) Powers of the President: 1. Executive power (Section 1, Article VII) 2. Appointing power (Section 16, Article VII) 3. Control power (Section 17, Article VII)
Section 4, Article XPower of general supervision over local governments

4. Calling-out power, power to place the Philippines under martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (Section 18, Article VII) 5. Pardoning power, reprieves, commutations, amnesty, remit fines and forfeitures (Section 19, Article VII) 6. Borrowing power (Section 20, Article VII) 7. Diplomatic/Treaty-making power (Section 21, Article VII) 8. Budgetary power (Section 22, Article VII) 9. Informing powerState of the Nation Address (Section 23, Article VII) 10.Veto power (Article VI) 11. Power of general supervision over local governments (Section 4, Article X) 12.Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI) 13.Unstated Residual Powernot found in the Constitution 14.Power to Reorganize the Office of the President (Administrative Code) 15.Power of Impoundment APPOINTING POWERcarries with it the Removal Power Appointmentis the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. Designationsimply means imposition of additional duties on a person already in the public service. Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154, when a person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold office in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will of the appointing authority. In this sense, a designation is

considered only an acting or temporary appointment which does not confer security of tenure on the person named. Appointing power is executive in nature. It is vested in the President. The power carries with it the power to remove except in some cases like Justices of the Supreme Court, the President appoints them but he cannot remove them. They can only be removed through impeachment. Officers to be appointed by the President that require the confirmation of Commission on Appointments: (the list is exclusive) 1. Heads of the executive department
Except: Vice-Presidentmay be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation. (Section 3, Article VII)

2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls 3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain 4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution
Example: JBC, Constitutional Commissions

5. All other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law 6. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, not all appointments made by the President need CA confirmation. Only those enumerated in paragraph 1 of Section 16, Article VII need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of Customs needs no confirmation by the CA, because the Commissioner of Customs is not among the officers mentioned in the 1st paragraph of Section 16, Article VII. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captainrefers to military officers alone PNP is now under the DILG (civilian in character, national in scope)no longer part of the AFP, therefore, no need for CA confirmation Soriano vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003, the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) is no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the AFP but is not under the DOTC, a civilian agency, the promotion and appointment of respondent officers of the PCG will not require confirmation by the CA. Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254, Article 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715, insofar as it requires the confirmation by the CA of the appointment of the NLRC Chairman and commissioners, is unconstitutional because it violates Section 16 of Article VII. The Congress, when they enacted the law, added to the exclusive list another category of officers to be appointed by the President that need the confirmation of the CA. Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239a law was enacted creating the PNP, RA 6795. It provides that the Director, Deputy Director General, and other top officials of the PNP shall be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The SC declared it as unconstitutional. In the above two cases, Congress cannot add/remove anything from the list of officers to be appointed by the President that require confirmation of the CA. The list is exclusive. The Congress cannot add or remove anything by a mere legislative act. Officials subject to the Appointment of the President:

A. With the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments 1. Heads of the executive department 2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls 3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain 4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution B. Prior recommendation or nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) 1. Members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts 2. Ombudsman and hid 5 Deputies C. Appointment of VP as Member of the Cabinet D. Appointment solely by the President 1. Those vested by the Constitution on the President alone 2. Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law 3. Those who may be authorized by law to appoint; 4. Those other officers lower in rank whose appointment is vested by law in the President alone Appointing Procedure: 1. Nomination by the President; 2. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; 3. Issuance of commission; and 4. Acceptance by appointee. Deemed complete upon acceptance. Pending such acceptance, which is optional to the appointee, the appointment may still be validly withdrawn. Appointment to a public office cannot be forced upon citizen except for purposes of defense of the State under Section 4, Article II of the Constitution, as an exception to the rule against involuntary servitude. Classifications: 1. Permanentthose extended to persons possessing the requisite eligibility and are thus protected by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. 2. Temporarythose given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will and without necessity of just cause or a valid investigation, made on the understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a permanent appointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a permanent choice is made. Temporary appointment and Designation are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Such confirmation, if given erroneously, will not make the incumbent permanent appointee. (Valencia vs. Peralta, 8 SCRA 692) 3. RegularAppointment by the President when Congress is in session. It takes effect only after confirmation by the CA, and once approved, continues until the end of the term of the appointee. 4. Ad Interim( 2 n d paragraph of Section 16, Article VII)Appointment by the President when Congress is not in session. It takes effect immediately but ceases to be valid if disapproved by the CA or upon the next adjournment of Congress. It is deemed by-passed through inaction. It is intended to prevent interruptions in vital government services that would otherwise result from the prolonged vacancies in government offices. It is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into

office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress. a. Recessone made while the Congress is not in session, before confirmation by the Commission on Appointment; immediately effective; and ceases to be valid if disapproved or bypassed by CA upon the next adjournment of Congress; b. Midnightmade by the President before his term expires, whether or not it is confirmed by the CA Ad interim appointment disapproved by the Commission on Appointmentscan no longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final decision of the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing power of the President. The disapproval is a decision on the merits, being a refusal by the CA to give its consent after deliberating on the qualifications of the appointee. Since the Constitution does not provide for any appeal from such decision, the disapproval is final and binding on the appointee as well as on the appointing power. In this instance, the President can no longer renew the appointment not because of the constitutional prohibition on appointment, but because of a final decision by the CA to withhold its consent to the appointment. In the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49, ad interim means in the meantime or for the time being. An ad interim appointment means a permanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked at any time. An ad interim appointee who has qualified and assumed office becomes at that moment a government employee and therefore part of the civil service. He enjoys the constitutional protection that he cannot be suspended or removed except for causes provided by law. The withdrawal or revocation of an ad interim appointment is possible only if it is communicated to the appointee before the moment he qualifies, and any withdrawal or revocation thereafter is tantamount to removal from office. Once an appointee has qualified, he acquires a legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. He can only be removed for cause, after notice and hearing, consistent with the requirements of due process. Ad Interim regular Takes effect immediately Appointee assumes office immediately and later on the appointment should be confirmed by the CA Made while Congress is not in session Does not take effect immediately Appointee assumes office only after confirmation by the CA Made when Congress is in session

The distinction lies in the effectivity of the appointment

Ad interim appointee by-passed by the CA is no longer subject to reappointment. He is deemed to have vacated the office. Case of First Impression 2 n d issue in the case of Matibag vs. Benipayowhether ad interim appointees by-passed by Commission on Appointments may be subject to re-appointment? The SC held that an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by the Commission on Appointments because of lack of time or failure of the latter to organize is another matter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session of Congress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a bypassed appointee. This is recognized in Section 17 of the Rules of the Commission on Appointments. Hence, under the Rules, a by-passed appointment can be considered again if the President renews the appointment. The ad interim appointments and subsequent renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason do not violate the prohibition on reappointments because there were no previous appointments that were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. A reappointment presupposes a previous confirmed appointment. The same ad interim appointments and renewal of appointments will also not breach the 7-year term limit because all the appointments and renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are for a fixed term expiring on February 2, 2008. Any delay in their confirmation will not extend the expiry date of their terms of office. Consequently, there is no danger whatsoever that the renewal of the ad interim appointments of these three respondents will result in any of the evils intended to be exorcised by the twin prohibition of the Constitution. The continuing renewal of the ad interim appointment of these three respondents for so long as their term of office expires on February 2, 2008 does not violate the prohibition on reappointments in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. Four (4) Situations where Section 1 (2), Article IX-C will apply: Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution provides: The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Member for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. 1. Where an ad interim appointee to the COMELEC, after confirmation by the CA, serves his full 7-year term. Such person cannot be reappointed to the COMELEC, whether as a member or as a chairman, because he will then be actually serving more than 7 years. 2. Where the appointee, after confirmation, serves a part of his term and then resigns before his 7-year term of office ends. Such person cannot be

reappointed. Whether as a member or as a chairman, to a vacancy arising from retirement because a reappointment will result in the appointee also serving more than seven years. 3. Where the appointee is confirmed to serve the unexpired term of someone who died or resigned, and the appointee completes the unexpired term. Such person cannot be reappointed, whether as member or chair, to a vacancy arising from retirement because a reappointment will result in the appointee also serving more than seven years. 4. Where the appointee has previously served a term less than seven years, and a vacancy arises from death or resignation. Even if it will not result in his serving more than 7 years, a reappointment of such person to serve an unexpired term is also prohibited because his situation will be similar to those appointed under the second sentence of Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. This provision refers to the 1st appointees under the Constitution, whose terms of office are less than 7 years, but are barred from ever being reappointed under any situation. In Pimentel, Jr. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 164798, October 13, 2005, Congress commenced their regular session on July 26, 2004, the Commission on Appointments was constituted on August 25, 2004. Meanwhile, President Arroyo issued appointments to respondents as acting secretaries of their respective departments. Respondents took their oath and assume duties as acting secretaries. Congress adjourned on September 22, 2004. On September 23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to respondents as secretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed in an acting capacity. A petition was filed to declare unconstitutional the appointments issued by the President to the respondents as acting secretaries of their respective departments without the consent of the Commission on Appointments while Congress is in session. The SC held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, an exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. The question of constitutionality of the Presidents appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in every such appointment. The office of a department secretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Since a department secretary is an alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office must necessarily have the Presidents confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the office of a department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacity a person of her own choice even while Congress is in session. The person may or may not be the permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make it expedient that the acting appointee will also be the permanent appointee. The law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) states that: The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch. Thus, the President may even appoint in an acting

capacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the President deems that person competent. Ad interim appointment Appointment in an acting capacity Made if congress is not in session Made any time there is vacancy, i.e., whether Congress is in session or not Requires confirmation of CA Permanent in nature Appointee enjoys security of tenure Does not require confirmation of CA Temporary in nature The appointee does not enjoy security of tenure Limitations on Appointing Power: 1. Prohibition against nepotism(Section 13, par. 2, Article VII) The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th 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. 2. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective unless revoked by the elected President within 90 days from his assumption of office. (section 14, Article VII) 3. The presidential power of appointment may also be limited by Congress through its power to prescribe qualifications for public office. 4. The judiciary may annul an appointment made by the President if the appointee is not qualified or has not been validly confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. 5. Section 15, Article VII2 types of appointment: 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. Case of First Impression In Re: Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta, 298 SCRA 409, Section 15, Article VII is directed against two (2) types of appointment: 1. Those made for buying votesthose appointments made within 2 months preceding the Presidential election and are similar to those which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code; 2. Those made for partisan considerationsconsist of the so-called midnight appointments and those presumed made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the presidential election. a. If made within the 2-month election period=election offense b. If made by an outgoing President before his term of office ends, it is MIDNIGHT appointment. Exception: temporary appointment to executive positions

Case of First Impression

De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA, 94, Mayor Evelyn Abeja run for reelection but lost. Before she vacated her office, though, she extended permanent appointments to 14 new employees of the municipal government. The incoming mayor, upon assuming office, recalled said appointments contending that these were midnight appointments and, therefore, prohibited under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. The SC held that the records reveal that when the petitioner brought the matter of recalling the appointments of the 14 private respondents before the Civil Service Commission, the only reason he cited to justify his actions was that these were midnight appointments that are forbidden by the Constitution. However, the CSC ruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition applies only to presidential appointments. In truth and in fact, there is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure. Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July 21, 2006, a statute cannot circumvent the constitutional limitations on the power to appoint by filling vacancies in a public office through election by the co-workers in that office. Such manner of filling vacancies in a public office has no constitutional basis. And since the pertinent section is unconstitutional, the President has the power to appoint the trustees by virtue of Section 16, Article VII which gives the President the power to appoint officers whose appointments are not provided for by the law. POWER OF REMOVAL General Rule: This power is implied from the power to appoint. Exceptions: Those appointed by him where the Constitution prescribes certain methods for separation from public services. Example: Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Justices of the SCmay only be removed through impeachment Members of the career service of the Civil Service who are appointed by the President may be directly disciplined provided that the same is for cause and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose continuity in office depends upon the pleasure of the President may be replaced at any time, but legally speaking, their separation is effected not by removal but by expiration of their term. (Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231) POWER OF CONTROL Sec. 17, Article VII: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Faithful Execution Clause As Chief Executive, the President holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her governmentshe lays down policies in the execution of her plans and programs, and whatever policy, she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004) Controlis the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. Supervisionmeans overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties, and if the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them,

then the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or the Alter Ego Doctrine Acts of the Secretaries of executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief executive. In the case of DENR vs. DENR Region XII Employees, G.R. No. 149724, August 19, 2003, the power of the President to reorganize the National Government may validly be delegated to his Cabinet members exercising control over a particular executive department. Accordingly, in this case, the DENR Secretary can validly reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR Regional Offices from Cotabato City Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter ego of the President, is presumed to be the act of the President because the latter had not expressly repudiated the same. However, in the case of Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000, the SC held that even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the President, he cannot invoke the Presidents immunity from suit in a case filed against him, inasmuch as the questioned acts are not those of the President. The power of control may be exercised by the President only over the acts not over the actor (Angangco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619) POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Section 4, Article X)the President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a LGU if he finds that the latter acted contrary to law. The President or any of his alter egos, cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and the legislative departments in governing municipal corporations. (Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002) The President exercises general supervision, not control, over local governments. The power is generally to see to it that the LGUs perform their powers and functions in accordance with law. MILITARY POWERS Section 18, Article VII: 1. The Commander-in-Chief Clause To call out the Armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Organize courts martial for the discipline of the armed forces and create military commissions for the punishment of war criminals. Calling-out powerlawless violence declare martial law & suspend the writ of HC Rebellion invasion when the public safety Invasion rebellion so requires Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006 (Tinga), the ability of the President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing

before Congress pertains to a wholly different and independent specie of presidential authoritythe commander-in-chief powers of the President. By tradition and jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are not encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executive privilege or executive control. 2. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus Grounds: invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it. Duration: not to exceed 60 days, following which it shall be lifted unless extended by Congress Duty of the President: To report action to Congress within 48 hours, personally or in writing The Congress may revoke or extend, on request of the President, the effectivity of proclamation by a majority vote of all its Members, voting jointly. The suspension applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three (3) days, otherwise he shall be released. 3. Proclamation of Martial Law Constitutional safeguards on the exercise of the power of the President to proclaim martial law a. There must be actual invasion or rebellion; b. The duration of the proclamation shall not exceed 60 days; c. Within 48 hours, the President shall report his action to Congress. if Congress is not in session, it must convene within 24 hours; d. Congress may, by majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke the proclamation, and the President cannot set aside the revocation; e. By the same vote and in the same manner, upon initiative of the President, Congress may extend the proclamation if the invasion or rebellion continues and public safety requires it; f. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing; g. It does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the confinement of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. Olaguer doctrineaka OPEN COURT DOCTRINEcivilians cannot be tried by military courts if the civil courts are open and functioning (Olaguer vs. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54448, May 22, 1987) 4 ways for the proclamation or suspension to be lifted: 1. Lifting by the President himself; 2. Revocation by Congress;

3. Nullification by the SC; 4. Operation of law after 60 days. PARDONING POWER Exercise by the President: Discretionary; may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the courts unless there is violation of the Constitution. Section 19, Article VII is simply the source of power of the President to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. This provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after the finality. In truth, an accused that has been convicted by final judgment still possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict who becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in the state of insanity. (See Article 79 of the Revised Penal Code) Article 81 of the Revised Penal code, as amended, which provides that the death sentence shall be carried out without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times. For instance, the President cannot grant reprieve, i.e., postpone the execution of a sentence to a day certain in the absence of a precise date to reckon with. The exercise of such clemency power, at this time, might even work to the prejudice of the convict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution, and the applicable statute as when the date of execution set by the President would be earlier than that designated by court. (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96) 1. Pardonan act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. a. Plenary or partial b. Absolute or conditional Conditional pardonis in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an additional one. 2. Commutationreduction or mitigation of penalty 3. Reprievepostponement of sentence or stay of execution 4. Parolerelease from imprisonment, but without full restoration of liberty, as parolee is in custody of the law although not in confinement 5. Amnestyact of grace, concurred in by the Legislature, usually extended to groups of persons who committed political offenses, which puts into oblivion the offense itself. Limitations: a. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment; b. Cannot be granted in violations of election laws without favorable recommendations of the COMELEC; c. Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment (except amnesty); d. Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt; e. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability; f. Cannot restore public offices forfeited.

Amnesty Pardon addressed to political offenses refers to infractions of laws of the state or granted to a class or classes of persons it need not be accepted it requires the concurrence of Congress it is a public act it looks backward and puts the offense into oblivion ordinary offenses granted to individuals it must be accepted it does not need the concurrence of Congress it is a private act of the President it looks forward and relieves the pardonee of the consequences of the offense Judicial admissions Matters of judicial notice no need of proof Judicial presumptions In Llamas vs. Orbos, pardon is available also to one found guilty of administrative offense. Section 19 of Article VII did not distinguish between a criminal and administrative offense. Effect of grant of pardon: In the case of Monsanto vs. Factoran, the accused was convicted of malversation thru falsification of official documents. She was granted absolute pardon. She demanded for reinstatement and back salaries. The SC held that pardon may mean forgiveness but not forgetfulness. What was remitted is the penalty and not the fact of ones guilt. In the eyes of law, she was still a convict. Exceptions: 1. Unless the grant expressly so provides for her reinstatement and payment of back salaries. 2. If the grant of pardon was based on the fact of the innocence of the one charged of the crime. BORROWING POWER The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic with the concurrence of the Monetary Board, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall submit to the Congress report on loans within 30 days from end of every quarter. Limitations: 1. There must be prior concurrence of the Monetary Board 2. It is subject to such other limitations DIPLOMATIC/TREATY-MAKING POWER (Section 21, Article VII) No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.

In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. (Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000) This provision lays down the general rule on treaties or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective. But see Section 25 of Article XVIII. Under this provision, the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines. BUDGETARY POWER Within 30 days from opening of every regular session, President shall submit to Congress a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. The Congress may not increase the appropriation recommended by the President. However, its form, content, manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by Congress. INFORMING POWERState of the Nation Address (Section 23, Article VII) The President shall address Congress at the opening of its regular session (4th Monday of July). He may also appear before it at any other time. VETO POWER (Article VI) RESIDUAL POWER Whatever is not judicial, whatever is not legislative, is residual power exercised by the President. OTHER POWERS 1. Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI) 2. Power to deport aliens 3. Consent to deputization of government personnel by COMELEC 4. To discipline such deputies 5. By delegation from Congress, exercise emergency and tariff powers Conditions for the exercise of the President of Emergency Powers: a. It can be exercised only in times of war or national emergency; b. There must be a law authorizing the President to exercise emergency powers; c. It must be for a limited period; d. It must be subject to restrictions which Congress may provide; and e. It must be necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. 6. Power to Reorganize the Office of the Presidentunder EO 292, the Administrative Code of 1987 The law grants the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the President in recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his office to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency. The Office of the President is the nerve center of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his directives and policies.

Power to reorganize the Office of the President [Sec. 31 (2&3), EO 292] Power to reorganize the Office of the President Proper [Sec. 31 (1), EO 292] The Presidents power to reorganize offices outside the Office of the The President can reorganize the Office of the president Proper by: President Proper is limited to merely transferring functions or agencies from the Office of the president to Departments or Agencies, and vice versa. a. Abolishing; b. Consolidating or merging units; c. Transferring functions from one unit to another. Domingo vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142283, February 6, 2003 Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines (MEWAP) vs. Executive Secretary Romulo, G.R. No. 160093, July 31, 2007, the President has the authority to carry out a reorganization of the DOH under the Constitutions and statutory laws. This authority is adjunct of his power of control under Article VII, Sections 1 and 17. The Presidents power to re0organize the executive branch is also an exercise of his residual powers. However, the President must exercise good faith in carrying out the reorganization of any branch or agency of the executive department. IMPOUNDMENT POWER Impoundment refers to the refusal of the President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three (3) principal sources of the authority of the President. 1. authority to impound given to him either expressly or impliedly by Congress 2. the executive power drawn from the Presidents role as Commander-in-Chief 3. Faithful Execution Clause The proponents insist that a faithful execution of the laws requires that the President desist from implementing the law if doing so would prejudice public interest. An example given is when through efficient and prudent management of a project, substantial savings are made. In such a case, it is sheer folly to expect the President to spend the entire amount budgeted in the law. (PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506)

Article VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER

It is the power to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have the right to sue in courts of law and equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locus standi of a litigant. He who is directly affected and whose interest is immediate and substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction and justify the exercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005) Section 1, Article VIII JUDICIAL POWER The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes: 1. The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable (TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER); and 2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (GADALEJ) on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (EXPANDED POWER) Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases. Section 2, Article VIIIThe Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. Constitutional Safeguards that guarantee independence of Judiciary: 1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and may not be abolished by law; 2. The members of the SC are removable only by impeachment; 3. The SC may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate jurisdiction; appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and concurrence; 4. The SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel; 5. The SC has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts; 6. The members of the Judiciary have security of tenure; 7. The members of the SC may not be designated to any agency, performing quasijudicial or administrative functions; 8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy; 9. The SC alone may initiate Rules of Court; 10.The SC alone may order temporary detail of judges; 11.The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. Fiscal Autonomymeans freedom from outside control. The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the SC, of the independence and separation of powers upon

which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992) Appointment to the Judiciary: Qualifications: Of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. In addition: A. Justices of the SC a. Natural-born citizen; b. At least 40 years of age; c. 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for the same period. B. Justices of the Court of Appeals Same qualifications as those provided for SC Justices Congress may prescribe other qualifications C. RTC Judges a. Citizen of the Philippines; b. At least 35 years of age; c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite D. MTC, MeTC, MCTC Judges a. Citizens of the Philippines; b. At least 30 years of age; c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has held public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite. Procedure for Appointment: 1. Appointed by the President from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for every vacancy. 2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission of the list. Tenure of Justices and Judges: A. S upreme CourtHold office until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge their duties. They may be removed only through impeachment. B. L ower CourtsHold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge their duties. By majority vote of members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues and voted thereon, SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts or order their dismissal. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL Composition: Ex-Officio ChairmanChief Justice of the Supreme Court Ex-Officio Members Secretary of Justice Representative of Congress Regular MembersRepresentative of the IBP

Professor of Law Retired Member of SC Representative of private sector Secretary de OfficioClerk of the Supreme Court Appointment: The President shall appoint regular members for a 4-year term with the consent of the Commission on Appointments Powers and Functions: 1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary; 2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 Deputies; 3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT Composition: yChief Justice and 14 Associates Justices yMay sit: o En Banc; or o In its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 members yAny vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof. Powers of the Supreme Court A. Original Jurisdiction 1. Over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; 2. Over petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, mandamus, Quo Warranto, and Habeas Corpus; Certiorari Jurisdiction of the SClimited to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It does not refer to purely executive powers. Hence, questions arising from the award of a contract for construction of voting booths can be brought before the trial court. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398, October 5, 2000) 3. Review of factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus. B. Appellate Jurisdiction yOver final judgments and orders of lower courts in: a. All cases in which 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 courts is in issue; d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher; and e. All cases in which only a question of law is involved. C. Electoral Tribunal for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Contests, over all contests relating to the election, return and qualification of the President or VicePresident. D. Temporary assignment of judges of lower courts to other stations as public

interest may require. Not to exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. E. Order change of venue or place of trial, to avoid miscarriage of justice F. Rule-making powerpromulgates rules concerning: 1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights; 2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts; 3. Admissions to the practice of law; 4. IBP; and 5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged. Limitations on rule-making power: a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases; b. Uniform for all courts of the same grade; c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. In Re: Request for Creation of a Special Division, A.M. No. 02-1-09-SC, January 21, 2002, it was held that it is within the competence of the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its power to promulgate rules governing the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights and rules governing pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, to create a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan which will hear and decide the plunder case against former President Estrada. Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999, Congress cannot amend the Rules of Court. The SC declared that the Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by the Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. G. Power of AppointmentSC appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with Civil Service law. H. Power of Administrative SupervisionSC shall have administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof. Administrative proceedings before the SC are confidential in nature in order to protect the respondent therein who may turn out to be innocent of the charges; it can take years to build a reputation and only a single accusation, although unfounded, to destroy it. (Godinez vs. Alano, A.M. RTJ-98-1409, February 18, 1999) I. Yearly ReportWithin 30 days from the opening of each regular session of Congress, SC shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report on the operation and activities of the Judiciary. (Section 16, Art. VIII) Cases to be heard by the SC En Banc: 1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; 2. Cases raising novel questions of law; 3. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; 4. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Election, and Commission on Audit; 5. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or

employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or both; 6. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed; 7. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the actual membership of the court en banc; and 8. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit its attention. (Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA, 334 SCRA 465, June 28, 2000) Consultations/Decisions of SC The conclusions of the SC 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 observe by all lower collegiate courts. Section 13, Article VIII This requirement does not apply to administrative cases Section 14, Article VIIINo decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
It does not apply to a minute resolution dismissing a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus, provided a legal basis is given therein. Neither will it apply to administrative cases.

People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002, the trial courts decision may cast doubt on the guilt of the accused, not by the lack of direct evidence against the accused but by:
1. the trial courts failure to fully explain the correlation of the facts; 2. the weight of the admissibility of the evidence; 3. the assessments made from the evidence; and 4. The conclusion drawn therefrom, after applying the pertinent law as basis of the decision.

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.
Lack of merit is sufficient declaration of the legal basis for denial of petition for review or motion for reconsideration.

Tichangco vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004, when the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments or motions, decides to deny due course to a petition, and statesin a minute resolution that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent courts decision is shown or some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. WRIT OF AMPARO The Rule on Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) It was drafted pursuant to the constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules and regulations for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.

WRIT OF AMPAROit is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or office, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. It is a writ which may be issued by the courts based on this constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights. It would compel state agents to look for the missing person and the agents would be held liable if they did not exert adequate effort in finding the person. amparomeans protection, from amparar meaning to protect Who may file? The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entitiy in the following order: Any member of the immediate family, namely: i. Spouse ii. Children iii. Parents of the aggrieved party Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned above; or Any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party. The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the rights of all others, observing the order established by the law. Where can be filed? The petition may be filed on any day at any time with the: yRTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred; ySandiganbayan yCourt of Appeals or any Justice of such courts ySupreme Court The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on the face of the petition it ought to issue. It is served on the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply. A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions. Return of the Writthe respondent shall file a verified written return together with the supporting affidavits within seventy-two (72) hours.

If he fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte or even without the appearance of the respondent. RTCreturnable before such court or judge Returnable before such court or any justice thereof; or SB/CA To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred Returnable before such court or any of its justices; SC Before the SB or CA or any of their justices; or To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred Hearing on the Petition The hearing shall be summary in nature. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to clarify or simplify some issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties. Available Interim Reliefs: 1. Temporary Protection Orderupon motion or motu proprio, the court, justice or judge may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety 2. Inspection Orderissued to any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. The movant must show that the order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. It expires five (5) days after date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons. 3. Witness Protection Orderthe witness may be referred to the DOJ for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, or to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety. Only the first two interim reliefs are available to the respondent after he filed a verified motion supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent, and after due hearing. The Court shall render judgment within 10 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be deemed proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. If the court determines that it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives, it shall not dismiss the petition. The court shall archive it instead. The amparo court may, on its own or upon motion by any party, order revival of the petition when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case. VDoes the filing of the petition preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions?

No. However, when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

It is the power of courts to test validity of executive and legislative acts if the same are in accordance with the Constitution. It is an expression of supremacy of Constitution. Justiciable Questiona given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted by law for said breach of right Political Questionsthose questions which, under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branches of government. Political Question Doctrine has been greatly diminished. yPolitical questions are questions of policy. They involve the wisdom of an act or the efficacy or the necessity of a particular measure. These are questions which are better left for the political branches of the government to determine or resolve. yArose from doctrine of separation of powers Two (2) Types of Political Question 1. Those to be decided by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity 2. Full discretionary authority has been delegated by the Constitution to the Legislative or Executive branch of the government Legislative and Executivepolitical branches of the governmentwhere laws are enacted and enforced RECALL- a mode of removing a local official from his post even before his term ends due to lack of confidence. It is a political question which can not be intruded by the courts. Ybardone vs. COMELEC- lack of confidence is to be decided by the people thru a special recall election Lawyer's League vs. AquinoPetitioner questioned the legality of the Aquino Government. -the SC dismissed the petition that it has gone outside the ambit of judicial review - the mere presence of the people, without inquiring to their motive in going to EDSA, caused Marcos to fly to Hawaii. Estrada vs. Desierto (2001) The Petition questioned the legitimacy of the assumption of office by then Vice President GMA Lawyer's League case was cited by respondents; that the case presented a political question, hence not subject to judicial review SC held that the case of Lawyer's League is inapplicable; the government of

former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended." It is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is not revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under 1987 Constitution. In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution. The case at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution, notably Sec. 1 of Article II and Sec. 8 of Article VI, and the allocation of governmental powers under Section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. Thus, respondent's invocation of the doctrine of political question is but a foray in the dark. EDSA I EDSA II -involves the exercise of people power of revolution which overthrows the whole government -extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review -involves the exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President -intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the VP as President are subject to judicial review -presented a political question -involves legal questions IBP vs. ZAMORA (2000) The SC said that when the President calls out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence, rebellion or invasion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. The Court cannot overrule the President's discretion or substitute its own. The only criterion is that "whenever it becomes necessary", the President may call out the armed forces. In the exercise of the power, on-the-spot decisions may be necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the armed forces must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. Section 18, Article VII- Powers of the President 1. Calling out power as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP

2. Power to proclaim martial law 3. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus CALLING-OUT POWER - full discretionary power of the President. In effect, it is a political question not subject to judicial review UNLESS it can be shown that there is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION (GAD) in the exercise of such power. -expanded power of the judicial review -mere abuse of discretion will not do. The abuse must be grave. To doubt is to sustain the power of the President. Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. (Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna vs. IAC, February 13, 1989) General Rule: Calling out power is not subject to judicial review and is considered a political question. Exception: When there has been a GAD. #s 2 and 3- are not political questions. They are subject to judicial review as expressly provided in Sec. 18 (3), Article VII: xxx The SC 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 30 days from its filing. xxx Randolf David, et al. vs. GMA, et al. (2006) Petitioners failed to rebut the assertion that GMA acted with grave abuse of discretion SC uphold the constitutionality of PP1017 insofar as it constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The proclamation is sustained by Sec. 18, Art. VII and other relevant jurisprudence. However, PP 1017's extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Sec. 17, Art. XII, the president, in the absence of legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public interest. ultra-vires acts and unconstitutional: a. warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas; b. the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; c. imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; d. warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of some articles for publication and other materials

Section 23 (2), Article VI: In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to 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. Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evident in the tenor of the above provision authorizing it to delegate such powers to the President. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it. However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be possible or practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of the Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the President, subject to certain conditions, thus: (1) There must be war or other emergency (2) The delegation must be for a limited period only (3) The delegation must be subject to restrictions as the Congress may prescribe (4) The emergency power must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state of national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Nor can he determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without legislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest that should be taken over. In short, the President has no absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17, Article XII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress. *emergency power must be authorized by Congress (thru an enactment of law) *she is not exercising emergency power because there was no law enacted by Congress authorizing her to exercise such power General rule: POTESTA DELEGATA NON DELEGARE POTEST- what has been delegated cannot be re-delegated. It is based on ethical principle that delegated powers constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operators and/or management contracts, it is not allowed to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. In Lim vs. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649, the Court clarified that since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate jai-alai, it cannot, even if it has license or permit from the City Mayor, operate jai-alai in the City of Manila. By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate legislative franchise, and not ride on PAGCORs franchise if it were to legally operate on-line internet gambling (Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 144463, January 14, 2004). Exceptions: Permissible Delegation of Powers (PETAL)

P-eople power thru plebiscite and initiative- (Sec. 32, ART VI; Sec. 10, Art. X; Sec. 2, Art. XVII; RA 6735) Under the 1987 Constitution, there are specific provisions where the people have reserved to themselves the function of legislation. Referendum vs. Plebiscite Referendum Plebiscite -the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called -the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected for that purpose by the people E-mergency power of the President. (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI) T-ariff Powers to the President. (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI) A-dministrative agencies- The power of subordinate legislation. L-ocal government. (RA 7160) Such legislation (by LG) is not regarded as a transfer of general legislative power, but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity (People vs. Vera). This recognizes the fact that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern, and are in better position to enact appropriate legislative measures thereon. Tests for Valid Delegation: 1. C ompleteness TestThe law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it. 2. S ufficient Standard Testintended to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected. This is intended to prevent a total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate. Three (3) Important Functions of Judicial Review 1. Checking 2. Legitimating Rule on Double Negativeuses the term not unconstitutional; the court cannot declare a law constitutional because it already enjoys a presumption of constitutionality 3. Symbolic - educating the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by the constitutional guarantees Proclamation No. 1021 was issued lifting PP 1017- it becomes moot and academic but SC did not agree as the case is capable of repetition. Requisites for the proper exercise of Power of Judicial Review 1. Actual case or controversy- must be definite, concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of parties who are pitted against each other due to their adverse legal interests. -susceptible of judicial determination Philippine courts may not render advisory opinion. There must always be an actual case or controversy EXCEPT: Int'l Court of Justice-principal judicial organ of the

United Nations- ICJ may render advisory opinions. Its 2 main functions are: (a) to decide contentious cases; and (b) to render advisory opinions upon request of the General Assembly, or the Security Council, or the other organs of the UN when authorized by the General Assembly. A request for an advisory is not an actual case or controversy. But an action for declaratory relief is proper for judicial determination. The issue raised in the case must not be moot and academic, or because of subsequent developments, have become moot and academic. MOOT and ACADEMIC PRINCIPLE General Rule: Court will have to dismiss the case. There is no more actual case to be resolved. Exceptions: (David vs. GMA) a. Grave violation of the Constitution b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved c. Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules and the symbolic function to educate the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by the constitutional guarantees d. Case is capable of repetition yet evading reviewit presupposes that: i. The life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination, and ii. That there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjected to the same problem 2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper partyA proper party is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. (LOCUS STANDI) "Legal Standing"- personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of governmental act. A party's standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the Court in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raised by the petitioners are of paramount public interest, the Court may, in the exercise of its discretion, brush aside the procedural barrier. (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110) In Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, Rep. Suplico, et al., and Senator Pimentel were considered as proper parties to contest the constitutionality of Pres. Arroyos proclamation of a state of rebellion after the Oakwood incident. In IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the petition seeking to nullify the order of Pres. Estrada for the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols around Metro Manila area, was dismissed on the ground that the IBP had no legal standing to question the presidential act. Lim vs. Executive Secretary (2002)Because of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised in the Petition, the Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushed aside the procedural barrier and took cognizance of the petitions.

Information Technology Foundation vs. COMELEC (2004) the subject matter of the case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest; it is of paramount public interest and of transcendental importance. Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, the petitioners do not posses the legal capacity to institute the action for annulment of the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) because they are without a present substantial interest, as distinguished from mere expectancy, or future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest. present substantial interest means such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has a legal title to defend and the defendant will be protected in payment to or recovery from him. In Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005, the petitioners failed to show any direct and personal interest in the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan; there was no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its implementation; and they admitted that they do not seek any affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act against the respondents. Clearly, then, they do not have any legal standing to file the instant suit. In Cutaran vs. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001, the SC refused to give due course to a petition seeking to enjoin the DENR from processing the ancestral land claim of private respondent over a property located at Camp John Hay reservation in Baguio, on the ground that there is no actual or imminent violation of the petitioners asserted right. Court will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse effect on the legal right of the person contesting its legality. Until such time, petitioners are simply speculating that they might be evicted from the premises at a future time. General rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it is unconstitutional. Exception: FACIAL CHALLENGE. The statute is absolutely unconstitutional under no circumstance. But the only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when it operates in the area of freedom of expression. Invalidation of the statute on its face, rather than as applied is permitted in the interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Overbreadth Doctrinepermits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied to others not before the Courts whose activities are constitutionally protected. In Francisco, Jr. vs. Bayani Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006, a citizen can raise a constitutional question only when 1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and 3) a favorable action will likely redress the injury. 3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportune time generally, the question must be raised in he pleadings; however, in criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court; in civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the determination of the case itself; and in every case, except where there is estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.

In Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 131124, March 21, 1999, the question of constitutionality of the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC) was not entertained because the issue was raised by the petitioner only in his motion for reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It was too late to raise the issue for the first time at that stage of the proceedings. 4. The decision on the constitutional question must constitute the very LIS MOTA must be determinative of the case itself/entire controversy In Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004, in a new challenge to the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the SC did not find the constitutional question to be the very lis mota presented in the controversy. Every law has in its favour the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative. PERIOD FOR DECISION Section 15, Article VIII(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months from date of submission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC, twelve months (12) for all lower collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all lower courts. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why 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. The above provision does not apply to Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals. The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial court. Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. (Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001) MEMORANDUM DECISIONS A specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, BP 129 on the grounds of: 1. Expediency 2. Practicality 3. Convenience 4. Docket status of the Court

To be valid, it cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum decision authorized under Section 40 of BP 129 should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of the decision. Distinctive Features and Purpose: 1. It is rendered by an appellate court. 2. It incorporates by reference the findings of facts or the conclusions of law contained in the decision, order, or ruling under review. This is to avoid cumbersome reproduction of the decision of the lower court, or portions thereof, in the decision of the higher court. The idea is to avoid having to repeat in the body of the higher court decision the findings or conclusions of the lower court since they are being approved or adopted anyway. 3. The purpose is to affirm the decision, although it is not impossible that the approval of the finding of facts by the lower court may lead to a different conclusion of law by the higher court. (Yao vs. CA, 344 SCRA 202, October 24, 2000)

Article IX CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Independent Constitutional Commissions: 1. Civil Service Commission 2. Commission on Elections 3. Commission on Audit Safeguards that guarantee the independence of the Commissions: 1. They are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by a statute;

2. Each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced by statute; 3. Each expressly described as independent; 4. Chairmen and members are given fairly long term of office for seven (7) years; 5. Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by impeachment; 6. Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in an acting capacity; 7. Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively high and may not be decreased during continuance in office; 8. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy; 9. Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules; 10.Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications calculated to strengthen their integrity; and 11. Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with Civil Service Law. Prohibitions and Inhibitions: No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure: 1. Hold any other office or employment; 2. Engage in the practice of any profession; 3. Engage in the active management and control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office; and 4. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. CHR Employees Association vs. CHR, G.R. No. 155336, November 24, 2004, the Commission on Human Rights, unlike the three Constitutional Commissions, does not enjoy fiscal autonomy. Civil Service Commission vs. DBM, G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005, the no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy, without violating Sec. 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution. The automatic release of approved annual appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission vested with fiscal autonomy should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed. However, petitioners claim that its budget may not be reduced by Congress below the amount appropriated for the previous year, as in the case of Judiciary, must be rejected. The provision in Section 3 of Article VIII, prohibiting the reduction in the appropriation for the Judiciary below the amount appropriated for the previous year does not appear in Section 5, Article IX-A. The plain implication of this omission is that Congress is not prohibited from reducing the appropriations of Constitutional Commissions below the amount appropriated for them for the previous year. Certiorari Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Limited to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It does not refer to purely executive powers. Hence, questions arising from the award of a contract for construction of voting booths can be brought before the trial court. (Ambil vs.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398, October 5, 2000)

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Composition: y1 Chairman; y2 Commissioners Qualifications: 1. Natural-born citizen; 2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment; 3. With proven capacity for public administration; and 4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding the appointment. Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment Scope of the Civil Service: Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters [Section 2(1), Article IX-B] Classes of Service: Career Servicecharacterized by: a. Entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined by competitive examination or based on highly technical qualification; b. Opportunity for advancement; and c. Security of tenure. Kinds of Career Service: yO pen Career Positionsprior qualification via examination; yC losed Career Positionsthose highly technical position; yC areer Executive ServiceUndersecretaries, Bureau Directors; yC areer Officersthose appointed by the President like those in the foreign service; yC ommissioned Officers and enlisted men of the AFPgoverned by separate merit system; yP ersonnel of GOCCswhether performing governmental or proprietary functions, with original charters; and yP ermanent laborerswhether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled. Non-Career Servicecharacterized by: a. Entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests of merits and fitness utilized for the career service; and b. Tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, which is co-terminus with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made. Kinds of Non-Career: yElective official and their personal or confidential staff; yDepartment heads and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold positions at the pleasure of the President and their personal or confidential staff; yChairmen and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff;

yContractual personnel or those whose employment in the government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or job; and yEmergency and seasonal personnel. Exceptions to the requirement of Competitive Examinations: 1. Policy-determining Positionone charged with laying down of principal or fundamental guidelines or rules; 2. Primary Confidential Positionone denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgiving or betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of state, or one declared to be so by the President upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. 3. Highly Technical Positionrequires the appointee to possess technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree. CSC vs. Engr. Darangina, G.R. No. 167472, January 31, 2007, where a non-eligible holds a temporary appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not prohibited. When a temporary appointee is required to relinquish his office, he is being separated precisely because his term has expired. Tanjay Water District vs. Quinit, Jr. G.R. No. 160502, April 27, 2007, it is an established rule that the tenure of office of those holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as longs as confidence in them endures. Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence, in which case, their cessation from office involves no removal but the expiration of their term of office. Power to approve/disapprove appointments The authority of CSC to approve appointmentsto check whether or not the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualification does not include the authority to make the appointment itself or to direct the appointing authority to change the employment status of an employee. The CSC can only inquire into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds the person qualified, it must so attest. If not, the appointment must be disapproved. (Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, G.R. No. 104639, July 14, 1995) In the case of Lopez vs. CSC, 194 SCRA 269, the SC held that the CSC has no power to revoke an appointment simply because it believes that the person protesting the appointment or somebody is better qualified, for that will constitute an encroachment of the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION
Composition: yOne (1) Chairman ySix (6) Commissioners Qualifications: 1. Natural-born citizen; 2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment; 3. With proven capacity for public administration; and 4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding

the appointment. 5. Majority, including the Chairman, must be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years. Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment Section 1, par. 2, Article IX-CChairman and Commissioners of COMELEC are not subject to re-appointment
(See the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo re: ad interim appointment)

The COMELECs exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3, Article IXC which expressly requires that: 1. All elections cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and 2. The motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. The prosecution of election law violators involves the exercise of the COMELECs administrative powers. Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly approve the recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal information for double registration against violators. There is no constitutional requirement that the filing of the criminal information be first decided by any of the divisions of the COMELEC. (Baytan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003) In Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007, once the winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. In Quizon vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177927, February 17, 2008, the denial of due course or cancellation of ones certificate of candidacy is not within the administration powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasijudicial functions. Hence, the Court may compel COMELEC to exercise such discretion and resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion. Powers and Functions: 1. Enforce and administer law and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall; 2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials; 3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by the RTC, or involving elective barangay officials by MTC; 4. Decide, except those involving right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including the determination of number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors and registration of voters; 5. Deputize, with concurrence of President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities for exclusive purpose of insuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. 6. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations or coalitions which must present their platform or program government; accredit citizens

arms; 7. File upon verified complaint or motu proprio petitions in court for inclusions or exclusions of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws; 8. Recommend to Congress effective measures to minimize election spending, limitation of places and prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractice and nuisance candidates; and 9. Submit to the President and Congress, comprehensive reports on conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Composition: yOne (1) Chairman yTwo (2) Commissioners Qualifications: 1. Natural-born citizen; 2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment; 3. CPA with at least ten (10) years auditing experience or members of the Philippine Bar with at least ten (10) years practice of law; at no time shall all members belong to the same position; and 4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding the appointment. Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment Powers and Duties: 1. Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust or pertaining to government; 2. Keep general accounts of government and preserve vouchers and supporting papers; 3. Authority to define scope of its audit and examination, establish techniques and methods required therefore; and 4. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for preservation and disallowance. Jurisdiction of the Commission: No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the Government, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA. (Sec. 3, Article IX-C) Temporary or Acting capacity appointment by the President to the COMELEC, COA, CSC is prohibited by the Constitution.
In Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358, the designation of Commissioner Yorac as Acting Commissioner of the COMELEC was a violation of Section 1, paragraph 1 of Article IX-C.

Fiscal Autonomy The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only to Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of Ombudsman. The Commission on Human Rights has no fiscal autonomy. (CHR Employees Association vs.
CHR, G.R. No. 155336, July 21, 2006)

Article XI ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 1, Article XI Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is governed by law, and cannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by private persons. Security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and second level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No. 169604, March 6, 2007) Who are impeachable officers? (The list is exclusive) 1. President 2. Vice-President 3. Members of the Constitutional Commission 4. Justices of the Supreme Court 5. Ombudsman
Justices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by impeachment.

Impeachment of Presidentthe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside; the

Senate/HOR will prosecute Grounds for impeachment: 1. Culpable violation of the constitution 2. Treason 3. Bribery 4. Betrayal of public trust 5. Graft and corruption 6. Other high crimes Procedure in Impeachment Initiation: The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Process: 1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member thereof; 2. Included in the order of business within ten (10) session days; 3. Referred to the proper committee within three (3) session days of its inclusion. If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. 4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shall submit its report to the House together with the corresponding resolution; 5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten (10) days from

submission; 6. Discussion on the floor of the report; 7. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or override its contrary resolution. Trial and Decision 1. The Senators take an oath or affirmation; 2. When the president is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside but shall not vote; 3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate. Effect of Conviction 1. Removal from office; 2. Disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines; 3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. Limitation: 1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated against the same official within a period of one (1) year. 2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, March 20, 2001, the Republic of the Philippines cannot be held liable under an Agreement entered into by the PCGG with another party where the republic did not authorize the PCGG to enter into such contract. Where the sale of an aircraft to a third party by the PCGG is void, it follows that the Agreement between the PCGG and the third party is likewise a nullity, and there can be no cause of action against the Republic. Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, et al. G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999, Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees as transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. This provision does not seem to indicate that what is imprescriptible is the corresponding civil action to recover ill-gotten wealth but not the criminal action that may relate thereto. The criminal action, i.e., violation of Section 3(c) and (g), RA 3019, can prescribe conformably with the pertinent statute applicable which, in this instance, BP 195, providing for a 15-year prescriptive period and thereby modifying to the above extent the 10-year prescriptive period under RA 3019. In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, an impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate while an impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the House of Representatives. For purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative punishment of removal from office because the power to remove local elective officials has been exclusively granted to the proper courts. (Sanggguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos vs.

Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)

SANDIGANBAYAN
The anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now and hereafter may be provided by law. Composition: yOne (1) Presiding Justice yFourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of the Court of Appeals Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members each Decision and Review Unanimous vote of all three (3) members shall be required for the pronouncement of judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by the SC on petition for certiorari. Jurisdiction: O riginal Jurisdiction B. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the RPC where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense: 5. Officials of the Executive branch with the position of Regional Director or higher, or with SG Level 27 according to RA 6758, specifically including: i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, board members, provincial treasures, assessors, engineers and other provincial departments head; ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, city councilors, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and other city department heads; iii. Officials of the diplomatic service from consuls or higher; iv. PA/PAF colonels, PN captains and all officers of higher rank; v. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher; vi. City/provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCCs state universities or educational institutions or foundations. 6. Members of Congress and officials thereof with SG27 and up; 7. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the Constitution; 8. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions without prejudice to the Constitution; and 9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher. C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection (a) in relation to their office; D. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986. E xclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of

mandamus, prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided, that jurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of the Supreme Court. E xclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or their appellate jurisdiction. (RA 8249)

THE OMBUDSMAN
yThe champion of the citizens and protector of the people. yTasked to entertain complaints addressed to him against erring public officers and take all necessary actions thereon. Composition: yAn Ombudsman known as the Tanodbayan yOne (1) Overall Deputy; yAt least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; yOne (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed Qualifications: 1. Natural-born citizen; 2. At least 40 years of age; 3. Of recognized probity and independence; 4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and 5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment Disqualifications and Inhibitions A. During their tenure: 1. Shall not hold any other office or employment; 2. Engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management and control of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his office; 3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. 4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. (Section 14, Article XI) Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993, the power to investigate also includes the power to impose preventive suspension. This is different from the power to recommend suspension. The latter is suspension as a penalty; preventive suspension is not a penalty. Powers, Functions and Duties: 1. The Constitution and RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) has endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutor powers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. The

Supreme Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of its powers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of public service. (Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000) 2. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not only those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but those within the jurisdiction of the regular courts as well. (Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001) Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007, since the responsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of the department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an independent constitutional body is involved. Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006, the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. Suspension under the Ombudsman Act vis--vis the Local Government Code: o In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24 of RA 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and: The charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; The charges should warrant removal from the service; or The respondents continued stay in the office would prejudice the case filed against him. o The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all public officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation. o On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive suspension prescribed under the LGC of 1991 on an elective local official (at any time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that: d. There is a reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of; e. The evidence of culpability is strong; f. The gravity of the offense so warrants; or g. The continuance in the office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. (Miranda vs. Sandioganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, July 27, 2005) Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007, the SC upheld the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that the powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Court

ruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the constitutional power to directly remove from the government service an erring public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.