CASE (Article VI: The Legislative Department) Section 27 CI# v$ CTA

MAIN POINT

ACTS

ISS!E

"ELD

Section 42 of house bill 17839 which became RA 6110 imposed a caterer s ta! on "arious operators of restaurants# $resident %arcos howe"er& "etoed the portion of Section 42 which imposed a 20' caterer s ta! on restaurants operated b( hotels& motels& and rest houses# $ri"ate respondent& %anila )olf and *ountr( club& claims that the assessment of petitioners to let them pa( the imposed ta!es is without basis because of the "eto done b( the $resident# 01213,4

+hether or not the "eto was "alid

,es& the "eto was "alid# An item in a re"enue bill does not refer to an entire section imposin- a particular .ind of ta!& but rather to the sub/ect of ta! and the ta! rate#

Section 27 %&lina& Electr&nics v$ Valencia Section 27 (par$ ') (&n)ales v$ Macaraig

3n 16 5ecember 1988& *on-ress passed 6ouse 1ill 19186& or the )eneral Appropriations 1ill for the 7iscal ,ear 1989# As passed& it eliminated or decreased certain items included in the proposed bud-et submitted b( the $resident# $ursuant to the constitutional pro"ision on the passa-e of bills& *on-ress presented the said 1ill to the $resident for consideration and appro"al# 3n 29 5ecember 1988& the $resident si-ned the 1ill into law& and declared the same to ha"e become RA 6688# 2n the process& se"en Special $ro"isions and Section 88& a 9)eneral $ro"ision:& were "etoed# Senator ;eptali )on<ales& to-ether with 22 other senators& assailed the constitutionalit( of $resident *or( A=uino s "eto of Section 88 of the 1989 Appropriations 1ill 0Sec 88 7, 89& and subse=uentl( of its counterpart Section 16 of the 1990 Appropriations 1ill 0Sec 16 7, 904# )on<ale< a"erred the followin-> 014 the $resident s line?"eto power as re-ards appropriation bills is limited to item@s and does not co"er pro"ision@sA therefore& she e!ceeded her authorit( when she "etoed Section 88 07, 894 and Section 16 07, 904 which are pro"isionA 024 when the $resident ob/ects to a pro"ision of an appropriation bill& she cannot e!ercise the item?"eto power but should "eto the entire billA 034 the item?"eto power does not carr( with it the power to stri.e out conditions or restrictions for that would be le-islation& in "iolation of the doctrine of separation of powersA and 044 the

+3; the $resident e!ceeded the item?"eto power accorded b( the *onstitution@ +3; the $resident has the power to "eto Bpro"isions of an Appropriations 1ill#

S* ruled that *on-ress cannot include in a -eneral appropriations bill matters that should be more properl( enacted in separate le-islation& and if it does that& the inappropriate pro"isions inserted b( it must be treated as Citem&: which can be "etoed b( the $resident in the e!ercise of his item?"eto power# Dhe S* went one step further and rules that e"en assumin- ar-uendo that Cpro"isions: are be(ond the e!ecuti"e power to "eto& and Section 88 07, 894 and Section 16 07, 904 were not Cpro"isions: in the bud-etar( sense of the term& the( are Cinappropriate pro"isions: that should be treated as Citems: for the purpose of the $resident s "eto power#

Section 27 (par$ ') Philc&nsa v$ Enri*+e)

power of au-mentation in Article E2& Section 28 F8G of the 1987 *onstitution& has to be pro"ided for b( law and& therefore& *on-ress is also "ested with the prero-ati"e to impose restrictions on the e!ercise of that power# An Act Appropriatin- 7unds for the 3peration of the )o"ernment of the $hilippines from Hanuar( 1 to 5ecember 1&1994& and for other $urposes was appro"ed b( the $resident and "etoed some of the pro"isions# $etitioners contest the constitutionalit( of the impoundment imposed b( the $resident in the implementation of certain appropriations for the *A7)I the pa(ment of separation benefits# $etitioners are retired /ustices of the Supreme *ourt and *ourt of Appeals who are currentl( recei"in- pensions under RA 910 as amended b( RA 1797# $resident %arcos issued a decree repealin- section 3?A of RA 1797 which authori<ed the ad/ustment of the pension of retired /ustices and officers and enlisted members of the A7$# $5 1638 was e"entuall( issued b( %arcos which pro"ided for the automatic read/ustment of the pension of officers and enlisted men was restored& while that of the retired /ustices was not# RA 1797 was restored throu-h 61 16297 in 1990# +hen her ad"isers -a"e the wron- information that the =uestioned pro"isions in 1992 )AA were an attempt to o"ercome her earlier "eto in 1990& $resident A=uino issued the "eto now challen-ed in this petition# 2t turns out that $5 644 which repealed RA 1797 ne"er became a "alid law absent its publication& thus there was no law# 2t follows that RA 1797 was still in effect and 61 16297 was superfluous because it tried to restore benefits which were ne"er ta.en awa( "alidl(# Dhe "eto of 61 16297 did not also produce an( effect# 0K2D4 *harters and Special Laws -ranted and enacted b( the Le-islature are in the nature pri"ate contracts $ursuant to RA 3843 07ranchise Act4& 12R assessed and demanded a-ainst respondent the compan( deficienc( franchise ta! and surchar-es it failed to pa(# Dhe respondent as.ed for rein"esti-ation& howe"er& it was denied# Dhe "alue?added ta! 0EAD4 is le"ied on the sale&

+3; the impoundment of the president is constitutional and "alidJ

Section 27 (par$ ') %eng)&n v$ Dril&n

+hether or not the "eto of the $resident of certain pro"isions in the )AA of 7, 1992 relatin- to the pa(ment of the ad/usted pensions of retired Hustices is constitutional or "alid#

Dhe president did not "eto the pro"ision but said instead his "eto messa-e that the implementation of the pro"ision would be sub/ect to his appro"al ta.in- into consideration the peace and order situation# Dhe president /ustified his impoundment on the pro"ision on the basis he is the commander in chief# Dhe court found in the doctrine on inappropriate pro"ision a w( out of a ha"in- to decide whether impoundment was le-al# Eeto "alid Dhe "eto of these specific pro"isions in the )AA is tantamount to dictatin- to the Hudiciar( ot its funds should be utili<ed& which is clearl( repu-nant to fiscal autonom(# $ursuant to constitutional mandate& the Hudiciar( must en/o( freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law# An( ar-ument which see.s to remo"e special pri"ile-es -i"en b( law to former Hustices on the -round that there should be no -rant of distinct pri"ile-es or Cpreferential treatment: to retired Hustices i-nores these pro"isions of the *onstitution and in effect as.s that these *onstitutional pro"isions on special protections for the Hudiciar( be repealed# Dhe petition is -ranted and the =uestioned "eto is ille-al and the pro"isions of 1992 )AA are declared "alid and subsistin-#

Section 27 Tana,a v$ T+vera Section 28 CI# v$ Linga-en (+l. Electric P&/er C&$0 Inc Section 28

+3; the court can in=uire into the wisdom of the act +hether or not

Dhe *ourt does not ha"e the authorit( to =uestion the wisdom of the Act#

;o# Dhe phrase Cori-inate e!clusi"el(: refers to

T&lentin& v$ Secretar- &. inance

Section 28 (arcia v$ E1ec+tive Secretar-

barter or e!chan-e of -oods and properties as well as on the sale or e!chan-e of ser"ices# RA 7716 see.s to widen the ta! base of the e!istinEAD s(stem and enhance its administration b( amendin- the ;ational 2nternal Re"enue *ode# Dhere are "arious suits challen-in- the constitutionalit( of RA 7716 on "arious -rounds# 3ne contention is that RA 7716 did not ori-inate e!clusi"el( in the 6ouse of Representati"es as re=uired b( Art# E2& Sec# 24 of the *onstitution& because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills& 6# ;o# 11197 and S# ;o# 1630# Dhere is also a contention that S# ;o# 1630 did not pass 3 readin-s as re=uired b( the *onstitution# *or( issued M3 438 which imposed& in addition to an( other duties& ta!es and char-es imposed b( law on all articles imported into the $hilippines& an additional dut( of 8' ad "alorem# Dhis additional dut( was imposed across the board on all imported articles& includin- crude oil and other oil products imported into the $hilippines# 2n 1991& M3 443 increased the additional dut( to 9'# 2n the same (ear& M3 478 was passed reinstatin- the pre"ious 8' dut( e!cept that crude oil and other oil products continued to be ta!ed at 9'# )arcia& a representati"e from 1ataan& a"ers that M3 478 and 478 are unconstitutional for the( "iolate Sec 24 of Art 6 of the *onstitution which pro"ides> 9 All appropriation& re"enue or tariff bills& bills authori<in- increase of the public debt& bills of local application& and pri"ate bills shall ori-inate e!clusi"el( in the 6ouse of Representati"es& but the Senate ma( propose or concur with amendments#9 6e contends that since the *onstitution "ests the authorit( to enact re"enue bills in *on-ress& the $resident ma( not assume such power of issuin- M!ecuti"e 3rders ;os# 478 and 478 which are in the nature of re"enue? -eneratin- measures# Dhe polic( of the courts is to a"oid rulin- on constitutional =uestions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are "alid in the absence of a clear and unmista.able showin- to the )uild of $hil# Hewellers =uestions the constitutionalit( of certain pro"isions of the ;2R* and Dariff and *ustoms *ode of the $hilippines# 2t is their contention that present Dariff and ta! structure increases manufacturin- costs and render local /ewelr( manufacturers uncompetiti"e a-ainst other countries# 2n support of their

RA 7716 "iolated Art# E2& Section 24 and Art# E2& Section 26024 of the *onstitution

the re"enue bill and not to the re"enue law# 2t is sufficient that the 6ouse of Representati"es initiated the passa-e of the bill which ma( under-o e!tensi"e chan-es in the Senate# S1# ;o# 1630& ha"in- been certified as ur-ent b( the $resident need not meet the re=uirement not onl( of printin- but also of readin- the bill on separate da(s#

whether or not M3 478 and 478 are unconstitutiona l

Inder Section 24& Article E2 of the *onstitution& the enactment of appropriation& re"enue and tariff bills& li.e all other bills is& of course& within the pro"ince of the Le-islati"e rather than the M!ecuti"e 5epartment# 2t does not follow& howe"er& that therefore M!ecuti"e 3rders ;os# 478 and 478& assumin- the( ma( be characteri<ed as re"enue measures& are prohibited to the $resident& that the( must be enacted instead b( the *on-ress of the $hilippines# Section 28024 of Article E2 of the *onstitution pro"ides as follows> 9024 Dhe *on-ress ma(& b( law& authori<e the $resident to fi! within specified limits& and sub/ect to such limitations and restrictions as it ma( impose& tariff rates& import and e!port =uotas& tonna-e and wharfa-e dues& and other duties or imposts within the framewor. of the national de"elopment pro-ram of the )o"ernment#9 Dhere is thus e!plicit constitutional permission to *on-ress to authori<e the $resident 9sub/ect to such limitations and restrictions as F*on-ressG ma( impose9 to fi! 9within specific limits9 9tariff rates ###and other duties or imposts # N9

Section 28 CI# v$ Sant&s

+3; RD* has authorit( to pass /ud-ment upon ta!ation polic( of the -o"ernment#

;o# Dhe polic( of the courts is to a"oid rulin- on constitutional =uestions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are "alid in the absence of a clear and unmista.able showin- to the contrar(# Dhis is not to sa( that RD* has no power whatsoe"er to declare a law unconstitutional# 1ut this authorit( does not

contrar(# Dhis is not to sa( that RD* has no power whatsoe"er to declare a law unconstitutional# 1ut this authorit( does not e!tend to decidin- =uestions which pertain to le-islati"e polic(# RD* ha"e the power to declare the law unconstitutional but this authorit( does not e!tend to decidin- =uestions which pertain to le-islati"e polic(# RD* can onl( loo. into the "alidit( of a pro"ision& that is whether or not it has been passed accordin- to the pro"isions laid down b( law& and thus cannot in=uire as to the reasons for its e!istence# Section 28 S&+thern Cr&ss v$ Philippine Cement

position& the( submitted what the( purported to be an e!hausti"e stud( of the ta! rates on /ewelr( pre"ailin- in other Asian countries& in comparison to ta! rates le"ied in the countr(# Hud-e Santos of RD* $asi- ruled that the laws in =uestion are confiscator( and oppressi"e and declared them 2;3$MRAD2EM and +2D63ID 73R*M A;5 M77M*D insofar as petitioners are concerned# $etitioner *2R assailed decision rendered b( respondent /ud-e contendin- that the latter has no authorit( to pass /ud-ment upon the ta!ation polic( of the -o"ernment# $etitioners also impu-n the decision b( assertin- that there was no showin- that the ta! laws on /ewelr( are confiscator(#

e!tend to decidin- =uestions which pertain to le-islati"e polic(# RD* ha"e the power to declare the law unconstitutional but this authorit( does not e!tend to decidin- =uestions which pertain to le-islati"e polic(# RD* can onl( loo. into the "alidit( of a pro"ision& that is whether or not it has been passed accordin- to the pro"isions laid down b( law& and thus cannot in=uire as to the reasons for its e!istence# S* held that it is within the power of the le-islature whether to ta! /ewelr( or not# +ith the le-islature primaril( lies the discretion to determine the nature 0.ind4& ob/ect 0purpose4& e!tent 0rate4& co"era-e 0sub/ect4 and situs 0place4 of ta!ation#

Section 28 (par$ 2) A3ra Valle- C&llege v$ A*+in&

$hilcemcor filed with the 5epartment of Drade and 2ndustr( 05D24 a petition see.in- for the imposition of safe-uard measures on )ra( $ortland cement& in accordance with the S%A 0Safe-uard %easure Act4# After the 5D2 issued a pro"isional safe-uard measure& the application was referred to the Dariff *ommission for a formal in"esti-ation& in order to determine whether or not to impose a definiti"e safe-uard measure on imports of -ra( $ortland cement# After public hearin-s and conductin- its own in"esti-ation& the Dariff *ommission came out with a ne-ati"e findin-# ;otwithstandin- such findin-& the 5D2 sou-ht the opinion of the Secretar( of Hustice whether it could still impose a definiti"e safe-uard measure# Dhe Secretar( of Hustice opined that the 5D2 could not do so under the S%A& and so the 5D2 Secretar( then promul-ated a 5ecision wherein he e!pressed the 5D2 s disa-reement with the conclusions of the Dariff *ommission& but at the same time& ultimatel( den(in- $hilcemcor s application for safe-uard measures on the -round that the he was bound to do so in li-ht of the Dariff *ommission s ne-ati"e findin-s# $etitioner is an educational corporation& its buildin- and lot was issued a 9notice of sei<ure9 and a 9notice of sale9 for failure to pa( ta!es# $etitioner ar-ues that the( should be ta! e!empt since itOs for educational purpose despite the fact

+hether or not the power to ta! can be dele-ated

,es& under conditions laid down in Section 28024# FCDhe *on-ress ma(& b( law& authori<e the $resident to fi! within the specified limits& and sub/ect to such limitations and restrictions as it ma( impose& Dariff rates& import and e!port =uotas& tonna-e and wharfa-e dues& and other duties or imposts within the framewor. of the ;ational 5e"elopment $ro-ram of the )o"ernment#G Dhis dele-ation of the ta!ation power b( the le-islati"e to the e!ecuti"e is authori<ed b( the *onstitution itself# At the same time& the *onstitution also -rants the dele-atin- authorit( the ri-ht to impose restrictions and limitations on the ta!ation power dele-ated to the $resident# Dhe restrictions and limitations imposed b( the *on-ress ta.e on the mantle of *onstitutional *ommand which the e!ecuti"e branch is obli-ed to obser"e#

+@; petitioner should the ta! e!empt for bein- an education

2t is mentioned in the *onstitution that when used for educational purposes& it should be e!empted from pa(in- ta!es# Reasonable emphasis has alwa(s been made that the e!emption to facilities which are incidental for the accomplishment of its

that the 2nd floor was bein- used as residential and the -round floor was bein- leased to another corporation# Section 28 Lla,&c v$ CI# Sometime in 1987& %#1# Mstate 2nc#& of 1acolod *it(& donated 10&000#00 pesos in cash to 7r# *rispin Rui<& the parish priest of Eictorias& ;e-ros 3ccidental& and predecessor of 7r# Lladoc& for the construction of a new *atholic church in the localit(# Dhe donated amount was spent for such purpose# 3n %arch 3& 1988& the donor %#1# Mstate filed the donorOs -ift ta! return# Inder date of April 29& 1960# *ommissioner of 2nternal Re"enue issued an assessment for the doneeOs -ift ta! a-ainst the *atholic $arish of Eictorias of which petitioner was the parish priest#

corporation#

Section 28 Central Min,ana& !niversit- v$ DA#

Dhe *ourt of Appeals& affirmin- the decision of the Dhe 5epartment of A-rarian Reform Ad/udication 1oard which ordered the se-re-ation of 400 hectares of suitable& compact and conti-uous portions of the *entral %indanao Ini"ersit( land and their inclusion in the *omprehensi"e A-rarian Reform $ro-ram for distribution to =ualified beneficiaries#

Section 28 C&mmissi&ner v$ CA

$ri"ate respondent ,%*A is a non?stoc.& non? profit institution& which conducts "arious pro-rams and acti"ities that are beneficial to the public& especiall( the (oun- people& pursuant to

+3; the imposition of -ift ta! despite the fact the 7r# Lladoc was not the $arish priest at the time of donation& *atholic $arish priest of Eictorias did not ha"e /uridical personalit( as the constitutional e!emption for reli-ious purpose is "alid# +hether or not respondent *ourt of Appeals committed serious errors and -ra"e abuse of discretion amountin- to lac. of /urisdiction in dismissin- the $etition for Re"iew on *ertiorari and affirmin- the decision of 5ARA1 +hether or not the income of pri"ate respondent

main purpose# howe"er it cannot be said that the lease of the -round floor to another corporation is to be incidental for the accomplishment of the main purpose# therefore the( should not be e!empted from pa(in- ta!es# ,es& imposition of the -ift ta! was "alid& under Section22034 Article E2 of the *onstitution contemplates e!emption onl( from pa(ment of ta!es assessed on such properties as $ropert( ta!es contra distin-uished from M!cise ta!es Dhe imposition of the -ift ta! on the propert( used for reli-ious purpose is not a "iolation of the *onstitution# A -ift ta! is not a propert( b( wa( of -ift inter "i"os# Dhe head of the 5iocese and not the parish priest is the real part( in interest in the imposition of the doneeOs ta! on the propert( donated to the church for reli-ious purpose#

Dhe e"idence is sufficient to sustain a findin- of -ra"e abuse of discretion b( respondents *ourt of Appeals and 5AR Ad/udication 1oard#Dhe 400 hectares ordered se-re-ated b( the 5ARA1 and affirmed b( the *ourt of Appeals in its 5ecision is not co"ered b( the *AR$ because 14 2t is not alienable and disposable land of the public domainA024 Dhe *%I land reser"ation is not in e!cess of specific limits as determined b( *on-ressA034 2t is pri"ate land re-istered and titled in the name of its lawful owner& the *%IA044 2t is e!empt from co"era-e under Section 10 of R#A# 6687 because the lands are actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( used and found to be necessar( for school site and campus& includine!perimental farm stations for educational purposes& and for establishin- seed and seedlinresearch and pilot production centers# ,%*A ar-ues that Art# E2& Sec# 28034 of the *onstitution e!empts charitable institutions from the pa(ment not onl( of propert( ta!es but also of income ta! from an( source# Dhe *ourt is not

its reli-ious& educational and charitable ob/ecti"es# ,%*A earned an income from leasinout a portion of its premises to small shop owners and from par.in- fees collected from non? members# Dhe *ommissioner of 2nternal Re"enue 0*2R4 issued an assessment for deficienc( income ta!& deficienc( e!panded withholdin- ta!es on rentals and professional fees and deficienc( withholdin- ta! on wa-es# ,%*A protested the assessment#

,%*A from rentals of small shops and par.in- fees is e!empt from ta!ation

persuaded# Dhe debates& interpellations and e!pressions of opinion of the framers of the *onstitution re"eal their intent# Hustice 6ilario 5a"ide Hr#& a former constitutional commissioner& stressed durin- the *oncom debate that what is e!empted is not the institution itselfA those e!empted from real estate ta!es are lands& buildin-s and impro"ements actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( used for reli-ious& charitable or educational purposes# 7r# Hoa=uin 1ernas& an eminent authorit( on the *onstitution and also a member of the *oncom& adhered to the same "iew that the e!emption created b( said pro"ision pertained onl( to propert( ta!es# 2n his treatise on ta!ation& Hustice Hose Eitu- concurs& statin- that the ta! e!emption co"ers propert( ta!es onl(# 2ndeed& the income ta! e!emption claimed b( ,%*A finds no basis in Art# E2& Sec# 28034 of the *onstitution# ,%*A also in"o.es Art# P2E& Sec# 4034 of the *onstitution claimin- that ,%*A is a non?stoc.& non?profit educational institution whose re"enues and assets are used actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( for educational purposes so it is e!empt from ta!es on its properties and income# Dhe *ourt reiterates that ,%*A is e!empt from the pa(ment of propert( ta!& but not income ta! on the rentals from its propert(# Dhe bare alle-ation alone that it is a non?stoc.& non?profit educational institution is insufficient to /ustif( its e!emption from the pa(ment of income ta!# Laws allowin- ta! e!emption are construed strictissimi /uris# 6ence& for the ,%*A to be -ranted the e!emption it claims under the aforecited pro"ision& it must pro"e with substantial e"idence that> 1# it falls under the classification non?stoc.& non?profit educational institutionA and 2# the income it see.s to be e!empted from ta!ation is used actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( for educational purposes# 6owe"er& the *ourt notes that not a scintilla of e"idence was submitted b( ,%*A to pro"e that it met the said re=uisites# ,%*A is not an educational institution within the pur"iew of Art# P2E& Sec# 4034 of the *onstitution# Dhe term Ceducational institution&: when used in laws -rantin- ta! e!emptions& refers to a school& seminar(& colle-e or educational establishment# Dherefore& ,%*A cannot be deemed one of the educational institutions co"ered b( the said

constitutional pro"ision# %oreo"er& the *ourt notes that ,%*A did not submit proof of the proportionate amount of the sub/ect income that was actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( used for educational purposes# Section 28 4&hn "a- v$ Lim Section 28 S-stems Pl+s C&mp+ter C&llege v$ Cal&&can Cit0K2D4 Dhe -rant of ta! e!emption rests upon the theor( that it will benefit the bod( of people and not upon the idea of lessenin- the burden of indi"idual corporate owners# $etitioner& a non?stoc. and non?profit educational institution& as.ed cit( -o"ernment of *aloocan to e!empt them from ta! for the parcel of land 0which the( rent from sister companies& *onsolidated Assembl( and $air %ana-ement4 that was used for educational purposes# Such re=uest was denied# Dhereafter& the companies entered into an a-reement where the land was donated to the petitioner and a-ain sou-ht reconsideration# 6owe"er& it was denied a-ain on the -round that the donation was mere farce to e"ade ta! liabilit(# Dhe lun- center is a charitable institution within the conte!t of 1973 and 1987 constitutions# Dhe elements considered in determinin- a charitable institution are> the statue creatin- the enterpriseA its corporate purposesA constitution and b(?laws& methods of administration& nature of actual wor. performed& character of the ser"ices rendered& indefiniteness of the beneficiaries& and the use occupation of properties# As a -en# principle& a charitable institution doe not lose its character as such and its e!emption from ta!es simpl( because it deri"es income from pa(in- patients& or recei"es subsidies from -o"ernmentA and no mone( insures to the pri"ate benefit of the persons mana-in- or operatin- the institution# +as the ta! e!emption sou-ht properJ ;o# there is no showin- that the parcel of land are Cactuall(& directl(& and e!clusi"el(: used either for reli-ious& charitable& or educational purposes# 6ence& ta! e!emption cannot be claimed#

Section 28 L+ng Center v$ 5+e)&n Cit-

+hether or not the real properties of the lun- center are e!empt from real propert( ta!es#

Section 28 Planters Pr&,+cts Inc v$ ertiphil C&rp

$etitioner $$2 and respondent 7ertiphil are pri"ate corporations incorporated under $hilippine laws& both en-a-ed in the importation and distribution of fertili<ers& pesticides and a-ricultural chemicals# %arcos issued Letter of 2nstruction 0L324 1468& imposin- a capital reco"er( component of $hp10#00 per ba- of fertili<er# Dhe le"( was to continue until ade=uate capital was raised to

+hether L32 ;o# 1468 is unconstitutiona l

$artl( ;o# Dhose portions of its real propert( that are leased to pri"ate entities are not e!empt from actuall(& direct and e!clusi"el( used for charitable purpose# Inder $5 1823& the luncenter does not en/o( an( propert( ta! e!emption pri"ile-es for its real properties as well as the buildin- constructed thereon# Dhe propert( ta! e!emption under Sec# 28034& Art# E2 of the propert( ta!es onl(# Dhis pro"ision was implanted b( Sec#243 0b4 of RA 7160#which pro"ides that in order to be entitled to the e!emption& the lun- center must be able to pro"e that> it is a charitable institution andA its real properties are actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( used for charitable purpose# Accordin-l(& the portions occupied b( the hospital used for its patients are e!empt from real propert( ta!es while those leased to pri"ate entities are not e!empt from such ta!es# An inherent limitation on the power of ta!ation is public purpose# Da!es are e!acted onl( for -eneral welfareA thus& the( cannot be used for purel( pri"ate purposes or for the e!clusi"e benefit of pri"ate persons# 2t would be a robber( for the State to ta! its citi<ens and used the funds -enerated for a pri"ate purpose# Dhe S* a-reed with the RD* and *A that the le"( imposed under L32 ;o# 1468 was not for

ma.e $$2 financiall( "iable# 7ertiphil remitted to the 7ertili<er and $esticide Authorit( 07$A4& which was then remitted the depositor( ban. of $$2# 7ertiphil paid $6&689&144 to 7$A from 1988 to 1986# After the 1986 Mdsa Re"olution& 7$A "oluntaril( stopped the imposition of the $10 le"(# 7ertiphil demanded from $$2 a refund of the amount it remitted& howe"er $$2 refused# 7ertiphil filed a complaint for collection and dama-es& =uestionin- the constitutionalit( of L32 1468& claimin- that it was un/ust& unreasonable& oppressi"e& in"alid and an unlawful imposition that amounted to a denial of due process# $$2 ar-ues that 7ertiphil has no locus standi to =uestion the constitutionalit( of L32 ;o# 1468 because it does not ha"e a 9personal and substantial interest in the case or will sustain direct in/ur( as a result of its enforcement#9 2t asserts that 7ertiphil did not suffer an( dama-e from the imposition because 9incidence of the le"( fell on the ultimate consumer or the farmers themsel"es& not on the seller fertili<er compan(# )o"ernor +enceslao $ascual of Ri<al instituted this action for declarator( relief& with in/unction& upon the -round that RA ;o# 920& which apropriates funds for public wor.s particularl( for the construction and impro"ement of $asi- feeder road terminals# Some of the feeder roads& howe"er& as alle-ed and as contained in the tracin-s attached to the petition& were nothin- but pro/ected and planned subdi"ision roads& not (et constructed within the Antonio Subdi"ision& belon-in- to pri"ate respondent Qulueta& situated at $asi-& Ri<alA and which pro/ected feeder roads do not connect an( -o"ernment propert( or an( important premises to the main hi-hwa(# Dhe respondentsO contention is that there is public purpose because people li"in- in the subdi"ision will directl( be benefitted from the construction of the roads& and the -o"ernment also -ains from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied b( the streets& made b( its owner to the -o"ernment# Dhe petitioner see. the declaration of the unconstitutionalit( of $#5# ;o# 81& Sections 31 of $#5# 1177& and $#5# ;o# 1967 which authori<ed the automatic appropriation for debt ser"ice in the

public purposeA hence it is unconstitutional#

Section 29 Pasc+al v$ Secretar- &. P+3lic 6&r7s

A law appropriatin- the public re"enue is in"alid if the public ad"anta-e or benefit& deri"ed from such e!penditure& is merel( incidental in the promotion of a particular enterprise#

+3; the incidental -ains b( the public be considered 9public purpose9 for the purpose of /ustif(in- an e!penditure of the -o"ernmentJ

;o# 2t is a -eneral rule that the le-islature is without power to appropriate public re"enue for an(thin- but a public purpose# 2t is the essential character of the direct ob/ect of e!penditure which must determine its "alidit( as /ustif(in- a ta!& and not the ma-nitude of the interest to be affected nor the de-ree to which the -eneral ad"anta-e of the communit(& and thus the public welfare& ma( be ultimatel( benefited b( their promotion# 2ncidental to the public or to the state& which results from the promotion of pri"ate interest and the prosperit( of pri"ate enterprises or business& does not /ustif( their aid b( the use public mone(# Dhe test of the constitutionalit( of a statute re=uirin- the use of public funds is whether the statute is desi-ned to promote the public interest& as opposed to the furtherance of the ad"anta-e of indi"iduals& althou-h each ad"anta-e to indi"iduals mi-ht incidentall( ser"e the public# ;o# Althou-h the sub/ect presidential decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid& necessitated b( the "er( nature of the problem bein- addressed& the amounts ne"ertheless are

Section 29 (+ing&na v$ Carag+e

+hether or not the presidential decrees are "iolati"e of

1990 bud-et# Dhe petition also see.s to restrain the disbursement for debt ser"ice under the 1990 bud-et pursuant to said decrees#

Section 29 014 Article E2 of the *onstitutionJ

Section 29 (ast&n v$ #ep+3lic Planters %an7

Section 30 irst Lepant& Ceramics

Section 32

Da!ed were le"ied on su-ar production for the purpose of creatin- the su-ar stabili<ation fund administered b( $62LSI*3%# $roceeds from the fund were used to capitali<e republic planters ban.# Su-ar producers petitioned the court to compel republic planters ban. and $62LSI*3% to transfer the shares to the names of the producers who are alle-el( the true owners of the shares# Dhe 3mnibus 2n"estments *ode of 1981 as amended pro"ided that appeals from decisions of the 1oard of 2n"estments 01324 shall be the e!clusi"e /urisdiction of the *A# Hust a few months after the 1987 *onstitution too. effect 0Hul( 17& 19874& the 3mnibus 2n"estments *ode of 1987 0M3 2264 was promul-ated which pro"ided in Art 82 thereof that such appeals be directl( filed with the S*# Dhe S* later promul-ated& under its rule?ma.in- power& *ircular ;o# 1?91 which confirmed that /urisdiction of the *A o"er appeals from the decisions of the 132# S* s Second 5i"ision& rel(in- on said *ircular& accordin-l( sustained the appellate /urisdiction of the *A in this present case# $etitioner now mo"e to reconsider and =uestion the Second 5i"ision s rulin- which pro"ided> CN#althou-h the ri-ht to appeal -ranted b( Art 82 of M3 226 is a substanti"e ri-ht which cannot be modified b( a rule of procedure& nonetheless& =uestions concernin- where and in what manner the appeal can be brou-ht are onl( matters of procedure which this *ourt has the power to re-ulate#: Dhe( contend that *ircular ;o# 191 0a rule of procedure4 cannot be deemed to ha"e superseded Art 82 of M3 226 0a le-islation4# 2n $amba(an- Kapas(ahan 1l-# 10& Ser(e 1993&

+@; the funds referred in the case are re-arded as public funds#

made certain b( the le-islati"e parameters pro"ided in the decrees# Dhe M!ecuti"e is not of unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be disbursed for debt ser"icin-# Dhe mandate is to pa( onl( the principal& interest& ta!es and other normal ban.in- char-es on the loans& credits or indebtedness& or on the bonds& debentures or securit( or other e"idences of indebtedness sold in international mar.ets incurred b( "irtue of the law& as and when the( shall become due# ;o uncertaint( arises in e!ecuti"e implementation as the limit will be the e!act amounts as shown b( the boo.s of the Dreasur(# ,es& the( are public funds# Dhe funds collected here were in the nature of a ta! with a special re-ulator( purpose# 6ence the( ma( onl( be used for a public purpose# Dherefore the shares cannot be considered to be owned b( pri"ate indi"iduals#

+3; the *ourt is correct in sustainin- the appellate /urisdiction of the *A in decisions from the 1oard of 2n"estmentsJ

,es# M3 226 was promul-ated after the 1987 *onstitution too. effect 7ebruar( 2& 1987# Dhus& Art 82 of M3 226& which pro"ides for increasinthe appellate /urisdiction of the S*& is in"alid and therefore ne"er became effecti"e for the concurrence of the *ourt was no sou-ht in its enactment# Dhus& the 3mnibus 2n"estments *ode of 1981 as amended still stands# Dhe e!clusi"e /urisdiction on appeals from decisions of the 132 belon-s to the *A#

+hether or not

2nitiati"e and referendum are powerful and

(arcia v$ COMELEC

the San--unian- 1a(an of %oron-& 1ataan a-reed to the inclusion of the municipalit( of %oron- as part of the Subic Special Mconomic Qone0SSMQ4 in accord with RA no# 7227# $etitioners filed a petition to annul the $amba(an- Kapas(ahan 1l-# 10& Ser(e1993# 2n the said petition& the( set some conditions which the( want to be complied with before the( include their municipalit( with SSMQ# %unicipalit( of %oron- did not ta.e an( action on the petition within 30 da(s after its submission &which prompted the petitioners resorted to their power of initiati"e under the Local )o"ernment *ode of 1991 whereb( the( started to solicit the re=uired number of si-natures to cause therepeal of said resolution# *3%MLM* en banc resol"ed to den( the petition for local initiati"e on the -round t hat its sub/ect is Cmerel( a resolution: and not an ordinance

the power of initiati"e can be e!ercised e"en what is=uestioned is onl( a resolution and not an ordinanceJ

"aluable modes of e!pressinpopular so"erei-nt(# $etition is )RA;DM5 and *3%MLM* Resolution 93?1623 are A;;ILM5 and SMD AS25M# *3%MLM* was also empowered to enforce and administer all laws and re-ulationsrelati"e to the conduct of an initiati"e and referendum#

CASE (Article VII: The E1ec+tive Department)

Section 1 Marc&s v$ Manglap+s

MAIN POINT

ACTS

ISS!E

"ELD

Dhis case in"ol"es a petition of mandamus and prohibition as.in- the court to order the respondents Secretar( of 7orei-n Affairs& etc# Do issue a tra"el documents to former $res# %arcos and the immediate members of his famil( and to en/oin the implementation of the $residentOs decision to bar their return to the $hilippines# $etitioners assert that the ri-ht of the %arcoses to return in the $hilippines is -uaranteed b( the 1ill of Ri-hts& specificall( Sections 1 and 6# Dhe( contended that $res# A=uino is without power to impair the libert( of abode of the %arcoses because onl( a court ma( do so within the limits prescribed b( law# ;or the $resident impair their ri-ht to tra"el because no law has authori<ed her to do so# Dhe( further assert that under international law& their ri-ht to return to the $hilippines is -uaranteed particularl( b( the Ini"ersal 5eclaration of 6uman Ri-hts and the 2nternational *o"enant on *i"il and $olitical Ri-hts& which has been ratified b( the $hilippines#

+hether or not& in the e!ercise of the powers -ranted b( the constitution& the $resident 0A=uino4 ma( prohibit the %arcoses from returnin- to the $hilippines

92t must be emphasi<ed that the indi"idual ri-ht in"ol"ed is not the ri-ht to tra"el from the $hilippines to other countries or within the $hilippines# Dhese are what the ri-ht to tra"el would normall( connote# Mssentiall(& the ri-ht in"ol"ed in this case at bar is the ri-ht to return to oneOs countr(& a distinct ri-ht under international law& independent from althou-h related to the ri-ht to tra"el# Dhus& the Ini"ersal 5eclaration of 6uman Ri-hts and the 2nternational *o"enant on *i"il and $olitical Ri-hts treat the ri-ht to freedom of mo"ement and abode within the territor( of a state& the ri-ht to lea"e the countr(& and the ri-ht to enter oneOs countr( as separate and distinct ri-hts# +hat the 5eclaration spea.s of is the 9ri-ht to freedom of mo"ement and residence within the borders of each state9# 3n the other hand& the *o"enant -uarantees the ri-ht to libert( of mo"ement and freedom to choose his residence and the ri-ht to be free to lea"e an( countr(& includin- his own# Such ri-hts ma( onl( be restricted b( laws protectin- the national securit(& public order& public health or morals or the separate ri-hts of others# 6owe"er& ri-ht to

enter oneOs countr( cannot be arbitraril( depri"ed# 2t would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the ri-ht to return to ones countr( in the same conte!t as those pertainin- to the libert( of abode and the ri-ht to tra"el# Dhe 1ill of ri-hts treats onl( the libert( of abode and the ri-ht to tra"el& but it is a well considered "iew that the ri-ht to return ma( be considered& as a -enerall( accepted principle of 2nternational Law and under our *onstitution as part of the law of the land# Dhe court held that $resident did not act arbitraril( or with -ra"e abuse of discretion in determinin- that the return of the 7ormer $res# %arcos and his famil( poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare# $resident A=uino has determined that the destabili<ation caused b( the return of the %arcoses would wipe awa( the -ains achie"ed durin- the past few (ears after the %arcos re-ime# Dhe return of the %arcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibitin- their return to the $hilippines& the instant petition is hereb( 52S%2SSM5# Section 1 La+rel v$ (arcia Section 1 Estra,a v$ Desiert& Section 1 %ala& v$ Macapagal9 Arr&-& (8IT) (LO#AINE) Sometime in September of 2008& Hames %# 1alao& a -raduate of the Ini"ersit( of the $hilippines?1a-uio& a founder of the *ordillera $eople s Alliance 0*$A4& a coalition of non? -o"ernment or-ani<ations wor.in- for the cause of indi-enous peoples in the *ordillera Re-ion& was abducted b( unidentified men in la Drinidad& 1en-uet# Hames s siblin-s filed with the Re-ional Drial *ourt 0RD*4 a $etition for the 2ssuance of a +rit of Amparo in fa"or of Hames 1alao with an Ir-ent M!?$arte %otion for the immediate issuance of the writ of Amparo# 3fficials of the %ilitar(& the 5efense 5epartment& the M!ecuti"e Secretar( and the $resident of the $hilippines were included as respondents# Dhe followin- da(& 3ctober 9& 2008& the +rit of Amparo was issued directin- respondents to file their "erified return to-ether with their supportin- affida"it within fi"e +3; the $resident would be under $residential immunit(# $resident Arro(o s inclusion as part(?respondent& the Supreme *ourt stated that the RD* clearl( erred in holdin- that presidential immunit( cannot be properl( in"o.ed in an Amparo proceedin-# As president& then $resident Arro(o en/o(ed immunit( from suit at the time the petition for a writ of Amparo was filed and moreo"er& the petition did not alle-e what specific presidential act or omission "iolated or threatened to "iolate petitioners protected ri-hts#

Section 1 #&,rig+e) v$ Macapagal9 Arr&-&

da(s from receipt of the writ# 2n their return& the respondents contended that the petition failed to meet the re=uirement in the Rules on the +rit of Amparo that claims must be established b( substantial e"idence# Dhe( also mo"ed to ha"e $resident )loria %acapa-al?Arro(o dropped as a part( on account of $residential immunit(# 2n its decision& the RD* ordered the issuance of a +rit of Amparo orderin- the respondents to 0a4 disclose where Hames 1alao is detained or confined& 0b4 to release Hames 1alao considerinhis unlawful detention since his abduction and 0c4 to cease and desist from further inflictin- harm upon his person# Rodri-ue< claims that the militar( ta--ed K%$ as an enem( of the State under the 3plan 1anta( La(a& ma.in- its members tar-ets of e!tra/udicial .illin-s and enforced disappearances# 6e was abducted b( the militar( and held him capti"e in a camp that belon-ed to the 17th 2nfantr( 1attalion of the $hilippine Arm(# 6ere& he was continuousl( interro-ated& beaten& star"ed& and electrocuted to confess that he was a member of the ;ew $eople s Arm( 0;$A4# 6e was also threatened to be .illed if he did not -i"e the location of the ;$A camp# 5espite all this& he remained silent# 5urin- the latter part of his detention& he was forced to si-n different documents declarin- that he had surrendered to the militar( in an encounter& that he was ne"er maltreated or tortured& and that he was a militar( asset -i"in- information about different indi"iduals who belon-ed to ;$A and the different ;$A locations# 3n the da( of his release& he was -i"en a shower& a new set of clothes& and food which he ate alon-side militar( officials# Dhrou-hout the da( s acti"ities& the militar( too. pictures of him bein- well?treated# 6e was repeatedl( reminded not to disclose to the media his e!perience in the camp and to sa( that he had surrendered# 6is famil( pic.ed him up that afternoon# Dwo 024 months after his release& howe"er& he noticed that he was constantl( bein- followed so he applied for writs of amparo and habeas data a-ainst the -o"ernment to protect him from the

+hether former $resident Arro(o should be dropped as a respondent on the basis of the presidential immunit( from suit#

Dhe S* cited the case of Mstrada "# 5esierto clarif(in- the doctrine that a non?sittin- $resident does not en/o( immunit( from suit& e"en for acts committed durin- the latter s tenure# Dhe( emphasi<e their rulin- that courts should loo. with disfa"or upon the presidential pri"ile-e of immunit(& especiall( when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the "indication of a ri-ht# Dhus& the( reiterated that the presidential immunit( from suit e!ists onl( in concurrence with the president s incumbenc(# +herefore& it is clear that former $resident Arro(o cannot use the presidential immunit( from suit to shield herself from /udicial scrutin( that would assess whether& within the conte!t of amparo proceedin-s& she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodri-ue<#

"iolation of his ri-ht to life& libert( and securit(# Amon- the respondents was $resident )loria %acapa-al?Arro(o 0$)%A4& based on the doctrine of command responsibilit(# Dhe *ourt of Appeals dismissed the petition with respect to former $resident Arro(o on account of her presidential immunit( from suit# Rodri-ue< contends& thou-h& that she should remain a respondent in this case to enable the courts to determine whether she is responsible or accountable therefore# 2n this re-ard& it must be clarified that the *ourt of Appeals rationale for droppin- her from the list of respondents no lon-er stands since her presidential immunit( is limited onl( to her incumbenc(# $resident A=uino sued 1eltran for libel for ha"inwritten that the $resident hid under the bed durin- an attempted coup#

Section 1 S&liven v$ Ma7asiar

+hile the $resident is immune from suit& she ma( not be pre"ented from institutin- suit# Dhe pri"ile-e of immunit( from suit& pertains to the $resident b( "irtue of the office and ma( be in"o.ed onl( b( the holder of the officeA not b( an( other person in the $residentOs behalf#

+3; a $resident can sue& since she cannot be sued#

Affirmati"e# $ri"ile-e of immunit( from suit pertains to the $resident b( "irtue of the office& and can be in"o.ed onl( b( the holder of the office& and not b( an( other person# An accused in a criminal case cannot raise the presidential pri"ile-e as a defense# Also& nothin- can stop the $resident from wai"in- said pri"ile-e#

Section 1 Senate v$ Ermita

Dhe *ommittee of the Senate as a whole issued in"itations to "arious officials of the M!ecuti"e 5epartment for them to appear as resource spea.ers in a public hearin- on the ;orth Rail $ro/ect 6owe"er& 3n September 28& 2008& Senate $resident 5rilon recei"ed from M!ecuti"e Secretar( Mrmita a cop( of M#3# 464& and another letter informin- him 9that officials of the M!ecuti"e 5epartment in"ited to appear at the meetinFre-ardin- the ;orthRail pro/ectG will not be able to attend the same without the consent of the $resident& pursuant to FM#3# 464G and that 9said officials ha"e not secured the re=uired consent from the $resident#9 Dhus this petition to declare M3 464 as unconstitutional as petitioners contend that the $resident has e!ercised -ra"e abuse of M!ecuti"e pri"ile-e in issuin- it#

+hether or not M3 464 is a "alid e!ercise of M!ecuti"e pri"ile-e

Dhe claim of pri"ile-e under Section 3 of M#3# 464 in relation to Section 20b4 is thus in"alid per se# 2t is not asserted# 2t is merel( implied# 2nstead of pro"idin- precise and certain reasons for the claim& it merel( in"o.es M#3# 464& coupled with an announcement that the $resident has not -i"en her consent# 2t is woefull( insufficient for *on-ress to determine whether the withholdinof information is /ustified under the circumstances of each case# 2t se"erel( frustrates the power of in=uir( of *on-ress# 2n li-ht of this hi-hl( e!ceptional nature of the pri"ile-e& the *ourt finds it essential to limit to the $resident the power to in"o.e the pri"ile-e becaue A formal and proper claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e re=uires a specific desi-nation and description of the documents within its scope as well as precise and certain reasons for preser"in- their confidentialit(# +ithout this specificit(& it is impossible for a court to anal(<e the claim short of disclosure of the "er( thinsou-ht to be protected#

Section 1 A73a-an v$ A*+in&

$etitioner see.s to ha"e the full?te!t of the Hapanese?$hilippines Mconomic $artnership A-reement0H$M$A4# Dhe( emphasi<ed that it is a matter of public concern and public interest# Respondent in"o.e its e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e#

+@; the a-reement can be co"ered b( the e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e#

Section 1 Neri v$ Senate

3n April 21& 2007& the 5epartment of Dransportation and *ommunication 053D*4 entered into a contract with Qhon- PinDelecommunications M=uipment 0QDM4 for the suppl( of e=uipment and ser"ices for the ;ational 1roadband ;etwor. 0;1;4 $ro/ect for I#S# R 329&481&290 0appro!imatel( $16 1illion $esos4# Dhe pro/ect was to be financed b( the $eople s Republic of *hina# Dhe Senate passed "arious resolutions relati"e to the ;1; deal# 2n the September 18& 2007 hearin- Hose de Eenecia 222 testified that se"eral hi-h e!ecuti"e officials and power bro.ers were usin- their influence to push the appro"al of the ;1; $ro/ect b( the ;M5A# ;eri& the head of ;M5A& was then in"ited to testif( before the Senate 1lue Ribbon# 6e appeared in one hearin- wherein he was interro-ated for 11 hours and durin- which he admitted that Abalos of *3%MLM* tried to bribe him with $200% in e!chan-e for his appro"al of the ;1; pro/ect# 6e further narrated that he informed $resident Arro(o about the briber( attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe# 6owe"er& when probed further on what the( discussed about the ;1; $ro/ect& petitioner refused to answer& in"o.in- Ce!ecuti"e pri"ile-e:# 2n particular& he refused to answer the =uestions on> 0a4 whether or not $resident Arro(o followed up the ;1; $ro/ect& 0b4 whether or not she directed him to prioriti<e it& and 0c4 whether or not she directed him to appro"e# 6e later refused to attend the other hearin-s and Mrmita sent a letter to the senate a"errin- that the communications between )%A and ;eri are pri"ile-ed and that the /urisprudence laid down in Senate "s Mrmita be applied# 6e was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he

+3; the communication s elicited b( the sub/ect three 034 =uestions co"ered b( e!ecuti"e pri"ile-eJ

Do be co"ered b( the ri-ht of information& the information must be a matter of public concern and must not in"ol"e matters of national securit(# Dhe petitioners demand of the full?te!t has been declared moot and academic since it was alread( made accessible to the public# 6owe"er the petitioners failed to show 9sufficient showin- of need9& therefore as for their demand of ha"inthe full?te!t was denied and respondents claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e was "alid# Dhe communications are co"ered b( e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e# Dhe re"ocation of M3 464 0ad"ised e!ecuti"e officials and emplo(ees to follow and abide b( the *onstitution& e!istin- laws and /urisprudence& includin-& amon- others& the case of Senate "# Mrmita when the( are in"ited to le-islati"e in=uiries in aid of le-islation#4& does not in an( wa( diminish the concept of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e# Dhis is because this concept has *onstitutional underpinnin-s# Dhe claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e is hi-hl( reco-ni<ed in cases where the sub/ect of in=uir( relates to a power te!tuall( committed b( the *onstitution to the $resident& such as the area of militar( and forei-n relations# Inder our *onstitution& the $resident is the repositor( of the commander?in?chief& appointin-& pardonin-& and diplomatic powers# *onsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers& the information relatinto these powers ma( en/o( -reater confidentialit( than the others# 2n the case at bar& M!ecuti"e Secretar( Mrmita premised his claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e on the -round that the communications elicited b( the three 034 =uestions Cfall under con"ersation and correspondence between the $resident and public officials: necessar( in Cher e!ecuti"e and polic( decision?ma.in- process: and& that Cthe information sou-ht to be disclosed mi-ht impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the $eople s Republic of *hina#: Simpl( put& the bases are presidential communications pri"ile-e and e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e on matters relatin- to diplomac( or forei-n relations# Isin- the abo"e elements& we are con"inced that& indeed& the communications elicited b( the three 034 =uestions are co"ered b( the presidential communications pri"ile-e# 7irst& the communications relate to a C=uintessential and

would appear and -i"e his testimon(#

Section 1 Pr&v$ O. N&rth C&ta3at& v$ (&vernment

Dhe )o"ernment of the Republic of the $hilippines 0)R$4& represented b( the )R$ $eace $anel and the $residential Ad"iser on the $eace $rocess 0$A$$4& and the %oro 2slamic Liberation 7ront were scheduled to si-n the %emorandum of A-reement on the Ancestral 5omain 0%3A?A54 Dhe %3A?A5 included& amon- others& a stipulation that creates the 1an-samoro Huridical Mntit( 01HM4& to which the )R$-rants the authorit( and /urisdiction o"er the

+@; the president has the power to pursue reforms that would re=uire new le-islation and constitutional amendments

non?dele-able power: of the $resident& i#e# the power to enter into an e!ecuti"e a-reement with other countries# Dhis authorit( of the $resident to enter into e!ecuti"e a-reements without the concurrence of the Le-islature has traditionall( been reco-ni<ed in $hilippine /urisprudence# Second& the communications are Crecei"ed: b( a close ad"isor of the $resident# Inder the Coperational pro!imit(: test& petitioner can be considered a close ad"isor& bein- a member of $resident Arro(o s cabinet# Dhird& there is no ade=uate showin- of a compellin- need that would /ustif( the limitation of the pri"ile-e and of the una"ailabilit( of the information elsewhere b( an appropriate in"esti-atin- authorit(# Respondent *ommittees further contend that the -rant of petitioner s claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e "iolates the constitutional pro"isions on the ri-ht of the people to information on matters of public concern# +e mi-ht ha"e a-reed with such contention if petitioner did not appear before them at all# 6owe"er& petitioner made himself a"ailable to them durin- the September 26 hearin-& where he was =uestioned for ele"en 0114 hours# ;ot onl( that& he e!pressl( manifested his willin-ness to answer more =uestions from the Senators& with the e!ception onl( of those co"ered b( his claim of e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e# Dhe ri-ht to public information& li.e an( other ri-ht& is sub/ect to limitation# Section 7 of Article 222 pro"ides> Dhe ri-ht of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be reco-ni<ed# Access to official records& and to documents& and papers pertainin- to official acts& transactions& or decisions& as well as to -o"ernment research data used as basis for polic( de"elopment& shall be afforded the citi<en& sub/ect to such limitations as ma( be pro"ided b( law# ,es& howe"er& the stipulation in the %3A?A5 -uarantees that necessar( chan-es shall be effected upon the le-al framewor. of the )R$ must be declared unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with the limits of the president s power to propose constitutional amendments# Dhe president ma( not unilaterall( implement them without the inter"ention of con-ress#

Section 1 Philippine C&nstit+ti&n Ass&ciati&n v$ Enri*+e)

ancestral domain defined as the present -eo-raphic area of the AR%% and some others cities and pro"inces which currentl( outside of AR%%# An Act Appropriatin- 7unds for the 3peration of the )o"ernment of the $hilippines from Hanuar( 1 to 5ecember 1&1994& and for other $urposes was appro"ed b( the $resident and "etoed some of the pro"isions# $etitioners contest the constitutionalit( of the impoundment imposed b( the $resident in the implementation of certain appropriations for the *A7)I the pa(ment of separation benefits# 0.it4 Dhe teachin- on e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e ma( be culled from# Earious officials of M!ec# 5ep t& and %ilitar( after bein- in"ited to appear as resource spea.ers on the issue of C)loria-ate:& wire?tappin-& electoral fraud& and etc# were not able to ma.e it due to prior commitments# Dhereafter& the $resident issued M3 464& 0Mnsurin- 3bser"ance of the $rinciples of Separation of $owers& Adherence to the Rule on M!ecuti"e $ri"ile-e and Respect for the Ri-hts of $ublic 3fficials Appearin- in Le-islati"e 2n=uiries in Aid of Le-islation under the *onstitution and for 3ther $urposes4 and Mrmita sent a letter to the Senate $resident informin- him of the M3 and that the resource persons from the e!ecuti"e departments would not be able to attend without the consent of the president#

+hether or not the impoundment of the president is constitutional and "alidJ

Dhe president did not "eto the pro"ision but said instead his "eto messa-e that the implementation of the pro"ision would be sub/ect to his appro"al ta.in- into consideration the peace and order situation# Dhe president /ustified his impoundment on the pro"ision on the basis he is the commander in chief# Dhe court found in the doctrine on inappropriate pro"ision a w( out of a ha"in- to decide whether impoundment was le-al# Eeto "alid#

Section 1 6e33 v$ De Le&n Section 1 Senate v$ Ermita

+3; M3 464 is "alidJ +hat t(pes of information are co"ered b( e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e

le-islation# 2f the e!ecuti"e branch withholds such information on the -round that it is pri"ile-ed& it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and wh( it mus be respected# Dhe t(pes of information include those which are of a nature that disclosure would sub"ert militar( or diplomatic ob/ecti"es& or information about the identit( of persons who furnish information of "iolations of law& or information about internal deliberations comprisin- the process b( which -o"ernment decisions are reached# M3 464& sec 2 enumerated the followin- as pri"ile-ed> 1# *on"ersations and correspondence between the $resident and the $ublic official co"ered b( this M3A 2# %ilitar(& diplomatic and other national securit( matters which in the interest of national securit( should be di"ul-edA 3# 2nformation between inter?-o"ernment a-encies prior to the conclusion of treaties and e!ecuti"e a-reementsA 4# 5iscussion in close?door *abinet meetin-sA 8# %atters affectin- national securit( and public order# Dhe communications elicited b( the three 034 =uestions are co"ered b( the presidential communications pri"ile-e# 14 Dhe protected communication must relate to a C=uintessential and non?dele-able presidential

Section 1 Neri v$ Senate

3n September 26& 2007& ;eriA appeared before the respondent committees and testified for about 11 hours on the matters concernin- the ;ational 1roadband $ro/ect& a pro/ect awarded to a *hinese compan( QDM# Dhe $etitioner therein

+hether or not the three =uestions sou-ht b( the SR1* to be

Section 2 Tecs&n v$ COMELEC

disclosed that when he was offered b( Abalos a bribe of 200 million pesos to appro"e the pro/ect& he informed $)%A of the attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe# 6owe"er when he was probed further on $)%A s and petitioner s discussions relatin- to the ;1; $ro/ect& petitioner refused to answer& in"o.ine!ec pri"ile-e# Dhe =uestions that he refused to answer were> 1# whether or not $)%A followed up the ;1; $ro/ect# 2# whether or not $)%A directed him to prioriti<e it# 3# whether or not $)%A directed him to appro"e it# Dhe petitioner did not appear before the respondent committees upon orders of the $resident in"o.in- e!ec pri"ile-e# 6e e!plained that the =uestions as.ed of him are co"ered b( e!ec pri"ile-e# 6e was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and -i"e his testimon(# 7ornier& petitioner initiated a petition before the *3%MLM* to dis=ualif( 7$H and to den( due course or to cancel his certificate of candidac( upon the thesis that 7$H made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidac( b( claimin- to be a natural?born 7ilipino citi<en when in truth& accordin- to 7ornier& his parents were forei-nersA his mother& 1essie Kelle( $oe& was an American& and his father& Allan $oe& was a Spanish national& bein- the son of Loren<o $ou& a Spanish sub/ect# )rantin-& petitioner asse"erated& that Allan 7# $oe was a 7ilipino citi<en& he could not ha"e transmitted his 7ilipino citi<enship to 7$H& the latter bein- an ille-itimate child of an alien mother# $etitioner based the alle-ation of the ille-itimate birth of respondent on two assertions ? first& Allan 7# $oe contracted a prior marria-e to a certain $aulita )ome< before his marria-e to 1essie Kelle( and& second& e"en if no such prior marria-e had e!isted& Allan 7# $oe& married 1essie Kell( onl( a (ear after the birth of respondent#

answered falls under e!ecuti"e pri"ile-e#

power#: 24 Dhe communication must be authored or Csolicited and recei"ed: b( a close ad"isor of the $resident or the $resident himself# Dhe /udicial test is that an ad"isor must be in Coperational pro!imit(: with the $resident# 34 Dhe presidential communications pri"ile-e remains a =ualified pri"ile-e that ma( be o"ercome b( a showin- of ade=uate need& such that the information sou-ht Cli.el( contains important e"idence: and b( the una"ailabilit( of the information elsewhere b( an appropriate in"esti-atin- authorit(#

+hether or ;ot 7$H is a natural born 7ilipino citi<en#

2t is necessar( to ta.e on the matter of whether or not respondent 7$H is a natural?born citi<en& which& in turn& depended on whether or not the father of respondent& Allan 7# $oe& would ha"e himself been a 7ilipino citi<en and& in the affirmati"e& whether or not the alle-ed ille-itimac( of respondent pre"ents him from ta.in- after the 7ilipino citi<enship of his putati"e father# An( conclusion on the 7ilipino citi<enship of Loren<o $ou could onl( be drawn from the presumption that ha"in- died in 1984 at 84 (ears old& Loren<o would ha"e been born sometime in the (ear 1870& when the $hilippines was under Spanish rule& and that San *arlos& $an-asinan& his place of residence upon his death in 1984& in the absence of an( other e"idence& could ha"e well been his place of residence before death& such that Loren<o $ou would ha"e benefited from the 9en masse 7ilipini<ation9 that the $hilippine 1ill had effected in 1902# Dhat citi<enship 0of Loren<o $ou4& if ac=uired& would thereb( e!tend to his son& Allan 7# $oe& father of respondent 7$H# Dhe 1938 *onstitution& durin- which re-ime respondent 7$H has seen first li-ht& confers citi<enship to all persons whose fathers are 7ilipino citi<ens re-ardless of whether such

children are le-itimate or ille-itimate# 1ut while the totalit( of the e"idence ma( not establish conclusi"el( that respondent 7$H is a natural?born citi<en of the $hilippines& the e"idence on hand still would preponderate in his fa"or enou-h to hold that he cannot be held -uilt( of ha"in- made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidac( in "iolation of Section 78& in relation to Section 74& of the 3mnibus Mlection *ode# $etitioner has utterl( failed to substantiate his case before the *ourt& notwithstandin- the ample opportunit( -i"en to the parties to present their position and e"idence& and to pro"e whether there has been material representation ,MS# *on-ress should not ha"e allowed *3%MLM* to usurp a power that constitutionall( belon-s to it# Dhe can"assin- of the "otes and the proclamation of the winnin- candidates for $resident and Eice $resident for the entire nation must remain in the hands of *on-ress as its dut( and power under Section 4 of Article E22 of the *onstitution# *3%MLM* has the authorit( to proclaim the winnin- candidates onl( for Senators and $art(?list Reps#

Section 4 Macalintal v$ COMELEC

Dhe proclamation of presidential and "ice? presidential winners is a function of *on-ress and not of the *omelec#

$etitioner %acalintal files a petition for certiorari and prohibition& see.in- a declaration that certain pro"isions of R#A# ;o# 9189 0Dhe 3"erseas Absentee Eotin- Act of 20034 are unconstitutional# Dhe *ourt upholds petitioner s ri-ht to file the instant petition& statin- in essence that the petitioner has seriousl( and con"incin-l( presented an issue of transcendental si-nificance to the 7ilipino people& considerin- that public funds are to be used and appropriated for the implementation of said law# Dhe petitioner ar-ues that Section 18#8 of the same law empowerin- the *3%MLM* to proclaim the winnin- candidates for national offices and part( list representati"es& includin- the $resident and the Eice?$resident& "iolates the constitutional mandate under Art# E22& Sec# 4 of the *onstitution that the winnin- candidates for $resident and Eice?$resident shall be proclaimed as winners onl( b( *on-ress#

+hether or not Section 18#8 of R#A# ;o# 9189 is "iolati"e of Art# E22& Sec# 4 of the *onstitution#

Section 4 L&pe) v$ Senate an, "&+se Section 4 Pimentel v$ 4&int Canvassing C&mmittee

0R6MA4

$etitioner Senator $imentel Hr# see.s to a writ of prohibition directin- respondent to cease and desist from conductin- further proceedin-s# 6e ar-ues that the term of the *on-ress -ot e!pired on its last session and therefore passed out of le-al e!istence and should terminate all pendinproceedin-s#

+@; petitions is with merit#

Dhe final ad/ournment of the *on-ressO session does not affect its non?le-islati"e functions# 2n fact it is stated in the *onstitution& under Article E22 Section 4& that both 6ouses of *on-ress con"ened b( e!press directi"e to can"ass the "otes for and to proclaim the $resident and Eice? $resident and cannot ad/ourn until it has accomplished its constitutionall( mandated tas.#

Section 4 Macalintal v$ PET

Att(# Romulo 1# %acalintal filed a petition that =uestions the constitution of the $residential Mlectoral Dribunal 0$MD4 as an ille-al and unauthori<ed pro-en( of Section 4& Article E22 of the *onstitution> CDhe Supreme *ourt& sittin- en banc& shall be the sole /ud-e of all contests relatin- to the election& returns& and =ualifications of the $resident or Eice?$resident& and ma( promul-ate its rules for the purpose#: Dhe Solicitor )eneral maintains that the constitution of the $MD is on firm footin- on the basis of the -rant of authorit( to the Supreme *ourt to be the sole /ud-e of all election contests for the $resident or Eice?$resident under par 7& Sec 4& Art E22 of the *onstitution# Section 1 of Republic Act ;o# 1793& which pro"ides that> 9Dhere shall be an independent $residential Mlectoral Dribunal which shall be the sole /ud-e of all contests relatin- to the election& returns& and =ualifications of the president?elect and the "ice? president?elect of the $hilippines#9

+hether or not $MD is constitutional#

,es# Republic Act ;o# 1793 has not created a new or separate court# 2t has merel( conferred upon the Supreme *ourt the functions of a $residential Mlectoral Dribunal# Dhe result of the enactment ma( be li.ened to the fact that courts of first instance perform the functions of such ordinar( courts of first instance& those of court of land re-istration& those of probate courts& and those of courts of domestic relations# Dhe e!plicit reference of the %embers of the *onstitutional *ommission to a $residential Mlectoral Dribunal& with 7r# Hoa=uin 1ernas cate-oricall( declarinthat in craftin- the last para-raph of Sec# 4& Art E22 of the 1987 *onstitution& the( Cconstitutionali<ed what was statutor(#: Hudicial power -ranted to the Supreme *ourt b( the same *onstitution is plenar(# And under the doctrine of necessar( implication& the additional /urisdiction bestowed b( the last para-raph of Section 4& Article E22 of the *onstitution to decide presidential and "ice?presidential elections contests includes the means necessar( to carr( it into effect# Dhe $residential Mlectoral Dribunal is not inferior to the Supreme *ourt& since it is the same *ourt althou-h the functions peculiar to said Dribunal are more limited in scope than those of the Supreme *ourt in the e!ercise of its ordinar( functions# 6ence& the enactment of Republic Act ;o# 1793& does not entail an assumption b( *on-ress of the power of appointment "ested b( the *onstitution in the $resident# 2t merel( connotes the imposition of additional duties upon the %embers of the Supreme *ourt# +e ha"e pre"iousl( declared that the $MD is not simpl( an a-enc( to which %embers of the *ourt were desi-nated# 3nce a-ain& the $MD& as intended b( the framers of the *onstitution& is to be an institution independent& but not separate& from the /udicial department& i#e#& the Supreme *ourt# ;o# under the Rule of the $MD# 2t pro"ides onl( the re-istered candidate for $resident or Eice? $resident of the $hilippines who has recei"ed the 2nd or 3rd hi-hest number of "otes ma( timel( contest the election of the proclaimed winner# And a public office is not a propert( capable of bein- transmitted to his heirs#

Section 4 ernan,& P&e0 4r$ v$ Arr&-&

7ernando $oe Hr# filled a election $rotest at the $residential electoral Dribunal a-ainst the proclaimed winner $resident Arro(o# 7ernando died durin- the pendenc( of the case& his widow Susan Roces claimed that she can be a substitute for her husband election protest#

%a( the widow substitute for the protestant who died durin- the pendenc( of the presidential protest caseJ

Section 4 Legar,a v$ De Castr&

+e are also in a-reement that the protestant& in assuminthe office of Senator and dischar-in- her duties as such& which fact we can ta.e /udicial notice of& has effecti"el( abandoned or withdrawn her protest& or abandoned her determination to protect and pursue the public interest in"ol"ed in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate#

$etitioner Loren 1# Le-arda filed before the $residential Mlectoral Dribunal a petition to annul the proclamation of Respodent ;oli L# 5e *astro as the Eice?$resident of the $hilippines# Dhe protest filed b( Le-arda consisted of two aspects# Dhe 7irst Aspect co"ers the alle-ed erroneous& manipulated and@or falsified results of the election# +hile the Second pertains to the re"ision of the ballots of the precincts specified in the protest# Dhe Second Aspect was earlier dismissed b( the Supreme *ourt for the failure of Le-arda to pa( the re=uired deposit for the e!penses#

+hether or not petitioner clearl( and con"incin-l( pro"ed the presence of manipulation or falsification of election results

$etition 52S%2SSM5# +e are also in a-reement that the protestant& in assumin- the office of Senator and dischar-inher duties as such& which fact we can ta.e /udicial notice of& has effecti"el( abandoned or withdrawn her protest& or abandoned her determination to protect and pursue the public interest in"ol"ed in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate# Dhe most rele"ant precedent on this issue is 5efensor?Santia-o "# Ramos& a decision rendered b( this Dribunal& which held that> Dhe term of office of the Senators elected in the 8 %a( 1998 election is si! (ears& the first three of which coincides with the last three (ears of the term of the $resident elected in the 11 %a( 1992 s(nchroni<ed elections# Dhe latter would be $rotestant Santia-o s term if she would succeed in pro"in- in the instant protest that she was the true winner in the 1992 elections# 2n assuminthe office of Senator then& the $rotestant has effecti"el( abandoned or withdrawn this protest& or at the "er( least& in the lan-ua-e of %orale/a& abandoned her Cdetermination to protect and pursue the public interest in"ol"ed in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate#: Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot the instant protest# %oreo"er& the dismissal of this protest would ser"e public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertaint( as to the results of the 1992 presidential election& thereb( enhancin- the all?FtooG crucial political stabilit( of the nation durin- this period of national reco"er(# 2t must also be stressed that under the Rules of the $residential Mlectoral Dribunal& an election protest ma( be summaril( dismissed& re-ardless of the public polic( and public interest implications thereof& on the followin- -rounds> 014 Dhe petition is insufficient in form and substanceA 024 Dhe petition is filed be(ond the periods pro"ided in Rules 14 and 18 hereofA 034 Dhe filin- fee is not paid within the periods pro"ided for in these RulesA 044 Dhe cash deposit& or the first $100&000#00 thereof& is not paid within 10 da(s after the filinof the protestA and 084 Dhe petition or copies thereof and the anne!es thereto filed with the Dribunal are not clearl( le-ible#

3ther -rounds for a motion to dismiss& e#-#& those pro"ided in the Rules of *ourt which appl( in a suppletor( character& ma( li.ewise be pleaded as affirmati"e defenses in the answer# After which& the Dribunal ma(& in its discretion& hold a preliminar( hearin- on such -rounds# 2n sum& if an election protest ma( be dismissed on technical -rounds& then it must be& for a decidedl( stron-er reason& if it has become moot due to its abandonment b( the $rotestant# 2n the case at bar& protestant s tenure in the Senate coincides with the term of the Eice? $residenc( 2004?2010& that is the sub/ect of her protest# 3n the matter of the alle-ed spurious MR copies& we a-ree with the protestee that the protestant had not ade=uatel( and con"incin-l( rebutted the presumption that as public documents& the *on-ress?retrie"ed MR copies& used for the proclamation of the protestee b( the ;1*& are authentic and dul( e!ecuted in the re-ular course of official business# Dhe e"idence adduced b( protestee to show that the supposed securit( features and mar.in-s in the *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs and the *3%MLM*@;A%7RML s copies are different& did not cate-oricall( establish that the *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs are fa.e and spurious# Do o"ercome the presumption of re-ularit(& there must be e"idence that is clear& con"incin- and more than merel( preponderant# Absent such con"incin- e"idence& the presumption must be upheld# 2n fact& the records show that e"en the witnesses presented b( the protestant testified that the( were able to discern securit( features and mar.in-s in the *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs# Dhe records also show that witnesses were not made to e!amine all *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs in ma.in- obser"ations relati"e to securit( features and mar.in-s& but onl( a sample set thereof was utili<ed& resultin- in -ra"e insufficienc( in the e"idence presented b( protestant# Section 4 De.ens&r9 Santiag& v$ #am&s Section 8 Estra,a v$ Desiert& 0K2D4

Mrap was elected as $resident of R$ with )%A as his E$# 1ecause of the /ueten- scandal& an impeachment proceedin- was started a-ainst Mrap which was cut short as prosecutors wal.ed

+3; Mstrada resi-ned as $resident

,es& impliedl(# 3n readin- M!ecuti"e Secretar( An-ara s diar( published in the $hil# 5ail( 2n=uirer& the *ourt held that petitioner impliedl( resi-ned because 14 he did not want to be a

out and /oined the rall(in- people in the streets of %anila# Amidst the pressure& Mrap proposed snap elections& which he is not to run as a candidate but to =uell the Cwa"e: a-ainst him# ;e-otiations were made between Mrap s camp and )%A s& and at 12nn of 20 Hanuar( 2001& )%A too. her oath which was ac.nowled-ed b( both 6ouses of *on-ress as well as the international communit(# Mrap& on the other hand& left %alacanan-# Section 8 L&)an&0 et al v$ Macapagal9 Arr&-& $etitioner 3li"er Lo<ano pra(s 9that the proclamation and oath?ta.in- of %adame Arro(o9 be declared null and "oid or that she be 9declared actin- $resident and $resident Hoseph M/ercito Mstrada& $resident?on?lea"e#9 +3; the petition possess merit#

candidate in the proposed snap election 24 he did not ob/ect to Sen# $imentel s Cdi-nified e!it: proposal and 34 on Mrap sa(in- that he onl( had 8 da(s to a wee. to sta( in the $alace# Also& from what the court e"entuall( calls his Cresi-nation letter:& Mrap 14 ac.nowled-ed )%A s oath?ta.inas $resident 24 he did not mention an( intent on re?assumin- his position as $resident and& 34 his -ratitude on the letter is on a past opportunit( he ser"ed as a $resident# 7irst& the $etition is essentiall( for declarator( relief& o"er which the Supreme *ourt had no ori-inal /urisdiction# Second& petitioners ha"e no le-al standin- to file the suit# 6e has not shown an( direct and personal in/ur( as a result of $resident Arro(oOs oath?ta.in-# Dhird& $etitioner cannot be treated as actions for =uo warranto# Inder Rule 66 of the rules of *ourt& a plea for =uo warranto ma( be commenced b( 014 the solicitor -eneral& 024 a public prosecutor& or 034 a person claimin- to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfull( held or e!ercised b( another# +6MRM73RM& the $etition at bar are 52S%2SSM5 for utter lac. of merit#

Section 11 Estra,a v$ Desiert& Section 13 Civil Li3erties !ni&n v$ E1ec+tive Secretar-

0L3RA2;M4 +hile all other appointi"e officials in the ci"il ser"ice are allowed to hold other office and emplo(ment in the -o"ernment durin- their tenure when such is allowed b( law or b( the primar( functions of their positions& members of the *abinet& their deputies and assistants ma( do so onl( when MP$RMSSL, authori<ed b( the *onstitution itself# $etitioners see. a declaration of the unconstitutionalit( of M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 284 issued b( $resident *ora<on *# A=uino on Hul( 28& 1987 which accordin- to them allows members of the *abinet& their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other than -o"ernment offices or positions in addition to their primar( positions# Dhe petitioners are challen-inM3 284 s constitutionalit( because it adds e!ceptions to Section 13 of Article E22 other than those pro"ided in the constitution# Accordin- to the petitioners& the onl( e!ceptions a-ainst holdin- an( other office or emplo(ment in -o"ernment are those pro"ided in the *onstitution namel(> 1# Dhe Eice $resident ma( be appointed as a %ember of the *abinet under Section 3 par#2 of Article E22# 2# Dhe secretar( of /ustice is an e!?officio member of the Hudicial and 1ar *ouncil b( "irtue of Sec# 8 of article E222# +hether or not M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 284 is constitutional# ;o# 2t is unconstitutional# $etition -ranted# M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 284 was declared null and "oid# 2n the li-ht of the construction -i"en to Section 13 of Article E22& M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 284 is unconstitutional# 1( restrictin- the number of positions that *abinet members& undersecretaries or assistant secretaries ma( hold in addition their primar( position to not more that two positions in the -o"ernment and -o"ernment corporations& M3 284 actuall( allows them to hold multiple offices or emplo(ment in direct contra"ention of the e!press mandate of Sec# 13 of Article E22 of the 1987 *onstitution prohibitin- them from doin- so& unless otherwise pro"ided in the 1987 *onstitution itself# Dhe phrase Cunless otherwise pro"ided in this constitution: must be -i"en a literal interpretation to refer onl( to those particular instances cited in

the constitution itself> Sec# 3 Art E22 and Sec# 8 Art# E222# Section 13 D&r&mal v$ San,igan3a-a n $etitioner& Suintin S# 5oromal& former *ommissioner of the $residential *ommission on )ood )o"ernment 0$*))4 filed a %otion to Suash the information a-ainst him for his "iolation of RA 3019 where respondents contend that he willfull( and unlawfull( ha"e direct or indirect financial interest in the 5oromal 2nternational Dradin- *orporation& an entit( which transacted or entered into a business transaction or contract with the 5epartment of Mducation& *ulture and Sports and the ;ational %anpower and ,outh *ouncil#& since accordin- to him& he has not si-ned an( document related to it# +hether or not petitioners %otion to Suash is with meritJ Dhere is no merit in petitionerOs insistence that the information should be =uashed because the Special $rosecutor admitted in the Sandi-anba(an that he does not possess an( document si-ned and@or submitted to the 5M*S b( the petitioner after he became a $*)) *ommissioner# Dhat admission alle-edl( belies the a"erment in the information that the petitioner 9participatedO in the business of the 52D* in which he is prohibited b( the *onstitution or b( law from ha"in- an( interest# 0Sec# 3?h& RA ;o# 30194#Dhe petitioner 9can ri-htfull( be char-ed ###with ha"in- participated in a business which act is absolutel( prohibited b( Section 13 of Article E22 of the *onstitution9 because 9the 52D* remained a famil( corporation in which 5oromal has at least an indirect interest#9 Section 13& Article E22 of the 1987 *onstitution pro"ides that 9the $resident& Eice?$resident& the members of the *abinet and their deputies or assistants shall not### durin- 0their4 tenure& ###directl( or indirectl(### participate in an( business#9 Dhe constitutional ban is similar to the prohibition in the *i"il Ser"ice Law 0$5 ;o# 807& Sec# 36& subpar# 244 that 9$ursuit of pri"ate business ### without the permission re=uired b( *i"il Ser"ice Rules and Re-ulations9 shall be a -round for disciplinar( action a-ainst an( officer or emplo(ee in the ci"il ser"ice# ,es& RA 7227 was declared unconstitutional# Dhe *onstitution prohibits a public officer to hold multiple functions since the( are accorded with a public office that is a full?time /ob& and to let them function without the distraction of other -o"ernmental duties# ,es# Dhe petitioner is& indeed& not entitled to recei"e per diem for his board meetin-s sittin- as representati"e of the Secretar( of Labor in the 1oard of 5irectors of the $MQA# Dhe petitioner s presence in the $MQA 1oard meetin-s is solel( b( "irtue of his capacit( as representati"e of the Secretar( of Labor# Since the Secretar( of Labor is prohibited from recei"in- compensation for his additional office or emplo(ment& such prohibition li.ewise applies to the petitioner who sat in the 1oard onl( in behalf

Section 13 l&res v$ Dril&n

Section 13 %it&ni& v$ COA

$etitioners =uestion the constitutionalit( of RA 7227& appointin- %a(or )ordon as the chairman and chief e!ecuti"e of the Subic 1a( %etropolitan Authorit(# $etitioner ar-ues that 9no electi"e official shall be eli-ible to be appointed to another public office durin- his term# 2n 1994& petitioner 1enedicto Mrnesto R# 1itonio& Hr# was appointed 5irector 2E of the 1ureau of Labor Relations in the 5epartment of Labor and Mmplo(ment# As representati"e of the Secretar( of Labor to the $MQA 1oard& he was recei"in- a per diem for e"er( board meetin- he attended durin- the (ears 1998 to 1997# After a post audit of the $MQA s disbursement transactions& the *3A disallowed the pa(ment of per diems to %r# 1itonio pursuant to the Supreme *ourt rulindeclarin- unconstitutional the holdin- of other

+@; RA 7227 is considered to be unconstitutiona l# +3; *3A correctl( disallowed the per diems recei"ed b( the petitioner for his attendance in the $MQA 1oard of 5irectors meetin-s as

Section 13 P+3lic Interest (r&+p v$ Elma

offices b( the cabinet members& their deputies and assistants in addition to their primar( office and the receipt of compensation therefore& and& to *3A %emorandum ;o# 97?038 dated September 19& 1997& implementin- Senate *ommittee Reports ;o# 809# 2n his motion for reconsideration to the *3A& he contended that the Supreme *ourt modified its earlier rulin- in the *i"il Liberties Inion case& which limits the prohibition to *abinet Secretaries& Indersecretaries and their Assistants# 3fficials -i"en the ran. e=ui"alent to a Secretar(& Indersecretar( or Assistant Secretar( and other appointi"e officials below the ran. of Assistant Secretar( are not co"ered b( the prohibition# 6e further stated that the $MQA *harter 0RA 79164& enacted four (ears after the *i"il Liberties Inion case became final& authori<ed the pa(ment of per diemsA in e!pressl( authori<in- per diems& *on-ress should be conclusi"el( presumed to ha"e been aware of the parameters of the constitutional prohibition as interpreted in the *i"il Liberties Inion case# Respondent Mlma was appointed as *hairman of the $residential *ommission on )ood )o"ernment 0$*))4 on 30 3ctober 1998# Dhereafter& durin- his tenure as $*)) *hairman& he was appointed as *hief $residential Le-al *ounsel 0*$L*4# 6e accepted the second appointment& but wai"ed an( remuneration that he ma( recei"e as *$L*# $etitioners sou-ht to ha"e both appointments declared as unconstitutional#

representati"e of the Secretar( of Labor#

of the Secretar( of Labor# %oreo"er& it is a basic tenet that an( le-islati"e enactment must not be repu-nant to the *onstitution# ;o law can render it nu-ator( because the *onstitution is more superior to a statute# Dhe framers of R#A# ;o# 7916 must ha"e reali<ed the flaw in the law which is the reason wh( the law was later amended b( R#A# ;o# 8748 to cure such defect# Dhe option of desi-natinrepresentati"e to the 1oard b( the different *abinet Secretaries was deleted# Li.ewise& the pa(ment of per diems to the members of the 1oard of 5irectors was also deleted& considerinthat such stipulation was clearl( in conflict with the proscription set b( the *onstitution#

+3; Respondent %a-dan-al 1# Mlma s concurrent appointmentsa s $*)) *hairman and *$L* is unconstitutiona l for bein- the "iolati"e of theproscription a-ainst multiple offices imposed b( Section 13& Article E22 andSection 7& par# 2& Article 2P?1 of the 1987 *onstitution +hether or not& durin- the

,MS# 2n harmoni<in- Section 13& Article E22 and Section 7& par# 2&Article 2P?1 of the 1987 *onstitution& the *ourt held in *i"il Liberties Inion "#M!ecuti"e Secretar( that 0a4 all electi"e and appointi"e public officials and emplo(ees are allowed to hold other office or emplo(ment in the -o"ernment durin- their tenure when such is allowed b( law or b( the primar( functions of their positions 0Section7& Article 2P?14A but 0b4 the $resident& the Eice?$resident& %embers of the *abinet& their deputiesand assistants ma( do so onl( when e!pressl( authori<ed b( the *onstitution itself 0Section 13& Article E224# Dhe $*)) ahs the dut( of -i"in- independent and impartial le-al ad"ice on the actions of the heads of "arious e!ecuti"e departments and a-encies and to re"iew in"esti-ations in"ol"in- other presidential appointees thus he ma( not occup( position in an( of the offices whose performance he must re"iew 5urin- the period stated in Sec# 18& Art# E22 of the *onstitution Ctwo months immediatel( before the

Section 18 In #e

Referred to the *ourt en banc are the appointments si-ned b( the $resident dated

App&intments &. Valen)+ela an, Vallarta

%arch 30& 1998 of 6on# %ateo Ealen<uela and 6on# $lacido Eallarta as /ud-es of the RD* of 1a-o *it( and *abanatuan *it(& respecti"el(# Dhese appointments appear prima facie& at least& to be e!pressl( prohibited b( Sec# 18& Art# E22 of the *onstitution# Dhe said constitutional pro"ision prohibits the $resident from ma.in- an( appointments two months immediatel( before the ne!t presidential elections and up to the end of his term& e!cept temporar( appointments to e!ecuti"e positions when continued "acancies therein will pre/udice public ser"ice or endan-er public safet(#

period of the ban on appointments imposed b( Sec# 18& Art# E22 of the *onstitution& the $resident is nonetheless re=uired to fill "acancies in the /udiciar(& in "iew of Secs# 4 014 and 9 of Art# E222

ne!t presidential elections and up to the end of his term: the $resident is neither re=uired to ma.e appointments to the courts nor allowed to do soA and that Secs# 4014 and 9 of Art# E222 simpl( mean that the $resident is re=uired to fill "acancies in the courts within the time frames pro"ided therein unless prohibited b( Sec# 18 of Art# E22# Dhis prohibition on appointments comes into effect once e"er( 6 (ears# Dhe appointments of Ealen<uela and Eallarta were un=uestionabl( made durin- the period of the ban# Dhe( come within the operation of the prohibition relatin- to appointments# +hile the fillin- of "acancies in the /udiciar( is undoubtedl( in the public interest& there is no showin- in this case of an( compellin- reason to /ustif( the ma.in- of the appointments durin- the period of the ban

Section 18 De la #ama v$ CA Section 18 De Castr& v$ 4+,icial an, %ar C&+ncil

0K2D4 Dhis case was filed with the contro"ers( that has arisen from the forthcomincompulsor( re=uirement of *hief Hustice $uno on %a( 17& 2010 or se"en da(s after the presidential election# H1* commenced the proceedin- for the selection of the nominees to be included in a shortlist to be submitted to the $resident for consideration of which of them will succeed *hief Hustice $uno as the ne!t *hief Hustice# Althou-h the position is not (et "acant& the fact that H1* be-an the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and practices& althou-h it has (et to decide whether to submit the list to the incumbent out-oin$resident or to the ne!t president ma.es the situation ripe for /udicial determination# Sometime in the 1900s& the ;ational *oal *ompan( 0;**4 was created b( the $hilippine *on-ress# Dhe law created it 0Act ;o# 28224 pro"ides that> CDhe "otin- power N shall be "ested e!clusi"el( in a committee consistin- of the )o"ernor?)eneral& the $resident of the Senate& and the Spea.er of the 6ouse of Representati"es#: 2n ;o"ember 1926& the )o"ernor?)eneral 0Leonard +ood4 issued M#3# ;o# 37 which di"ested the "otin- ri-hts of the Senate $resident and 6ouse Spea.er in the ;**# Dhe M3 emphasi<ed that the "otin- ri-ht should be solel( lod-ed in the )o"ernor?)eneral who is the head of the -o"ernment 0$resident at that time was considered the head of state but +3; Sec 18 of ARD 7 applies to appointments to the /udiciar(# ;o# $rohibition under Section 18 of ARD 7 does not appl( to appointments to fill a "acanc( in the S* or to other appointments to the Hudiciar(# As can be seen& Article 7 is de"oted to the M!ecuti"e 5epartment& and amon- others& it lists the powers "ested b( the *onstitution in the $resident# 3ne of the reasons underl(in- the adoption of the pro"ision was to eliminate midni-ht appointments from bein- made b( an out-oin- *hief M!ecuti"e# ;o# M#3# ;o 37 is "alid# 2t is in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers# Dhe Supreme *ourt emphasi<ed that the le-islature creates the public office but it has nothin- to do with desi-natin- the persons to fill the office# Appointin- persons to a public office is essentiall( e!ecuti"e# Dhe ;** is a -o"ernment owned and controlled corporation# 2t was created b( *on-ress# Do e!tend the power of *on-ress into allowin- it& throu-h the Senate $resident and the 6ouse Spea.er& to appoint members of the ;** is alread( an in"asion of e!ecuti"e powers# Dhe Supreme *ourt howe"er notes that indeed there are e!ceptions to this rule where the le-islature ma( appoint persons to fill public

Section 16 (&vernment v$ Springer

+hether or not the Senate $resident as well as the 6ouse Spea.er can "alidl( elect the 1oard %embers of ;**#

does not mana-e -o"ernment affairs4# A cop( of the said M3 was furnished to the Senate $resident and the 6ouse Spea.er# 6owe"er& in 5ecember 1926& ;** held its elections and the Senate $resident as well as the 6ouse Spea.er& notwithstandin- M3 ;o# 37 and the ob/ection of the )o"ernor?)eneral& still elected %ilton Sprin-er and four others as 1oard of 5irectors of ;**# Dhereafter& a =uo warranto proceedin- in behalf of the -o"ernment was filed a-ainst Sprin-er et al =uestionin- the "alidit( of their election into the 1oard of ;**# Section 16 %erm+,e) v$ E1ec+tive SecretarSection 16 l&res vs$ Dril&n 0;ML4

office# Such e!ception can be found in the appointment b( the le-islature of persons to fill offices within the le-islati"e branch T this e!ception is allowable because it does not wea.en the e!ecuti"e branch#

Dhe appointin- authorit( that the con-ress -i"es to the $resident is an e!clusi"e prero-ati"e of the $resident& upon which no limitations ma( be imposed b( the *on-ress#

Section 16 %a+tista v$ Sal&nga

Dhe constitutionalit( of Sec# 13& par# 0d4& of R#A# 7227& otherwise .nown as the 91ases *on"ersion and 5e"elopment Act of 1992&9 under which respondent %a(or Richard H# )ordon of 3lon-apo *it( was appointed *hairman and *hief M!ecuti"e 3fficer of the Subic 1a( %etropolitan Authorit( 0S1%A4& is challen-ed in this case# $ara-raph 0d4 pro"ides that the $resident shall appoint a professional mana-er as administrator of the Subic Authorit( with a compensation to be determined b( the 1oard sub/ect to the appro"al of the Secretar( of 1ud-et& who shall be the e! oficio chairman of the 1oard and who shall ser"e as the chief e!ecuti"e officer of the Subic Authorit(# $ro"ided& howe"er& that for the first (ear of its operations from the effecti"it( of this Act& the ma(or of the *it( of 3lon-apo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief e!ecuti"e officer of the Subic Authorit(# 3ne of the contentions of the petitioners is that it "iolates Sec# 16& Art# E22& of the *onstitution& which pro"ides that 9FtGhe $resident shall # # # # appoint all other officers of the )o"ernment whose appointments are not otherwise pro"ided for b( law& and those whom he ma( be authori<ed b( law to appoint9& since it was *on-ress throu-h the =uestioned pro"iso and not the $resident who appointed the %a(or 0pro"ision on the first (ear of operations4 to the sub/ect posts# > 3n 27 Au- 1987& *or( desi-nated 1autista as the Actin- *hairwoman of *6R# 2n 5ecember of the same (ear& *or( made the desi-nation of 1autista permanent# 6owe"er& *ommission on

+3; the pro"ision in Sec# 13& par# 0d4& of R#A# 7227 "iolatesl Sec# 16& Art# E22 of the *onstitution#

,es# Dhe *on-ress -i"es the $resident the appointin- authorit( which it cannot limit b( pro"idin- the condition that in the first (ear of the operation the %a(or of 3lon-apo *it( shall assume the *hairmanship# Dhe court points out that the appointin- authorit( the con-ress -i"es to the $resident is no power at all as it curtails the ri-ht of the $resident to e!ercise discretion of whom to appoint b( limitin- his choice#

+hether or not 1autista s appointment is sub/ect to

Since the position of *hairman of the *6R is not amon- the positions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec# 16& Art# 7 of the 1987 *onstitution& appointments to which are to be

Section 16 Sarmient& v$ Mis&n

Appointments a"erred that 1autista cannot ta.e her seat w@o their confirmation# *or(& throu-h the M!ec Sec& filed with the *oA communications about 1autista s appointment on 14 Han 1989# 1autista refused to be placed under the *oA s re"iew hence she filed a petition before the S*# 3n the other hand& %allillin in"o.ed M3 163?A statin- that since *oA refused 1autista s appointment& 1autista should be remo"ed# M3 163?A pro"ides that the tenure of the *hairman and the *ommissioners of the *6R should be at the pleasure of the $resident# $etitioner filed a motion to prohibit respondent from performin- his duties as the commissioner of the 1ureau of *ustoms on the -round that respondentOs appointment was not confirmed b( the *ommission on Appointments#

*oA s confirmationJ

made with the confirmation of the *oA it follows that the appointment b( the $resident of the *hairman of the *6R is to be made without the re"iew or participation of the *oA# Do be more precise& the appointment of the *hairman and %embers of the *6R is not specificall( pro"ided for in the *onstitution itself#

+@; the appointment is considered to be "alid#

Section 16 5+int&s9Deles v$ C&mmissi&n &n App&intments

Dhe petitioner and three others were appointed Sectoral Representati"es b( the $resident pursuant to Article E22& Section 16& para-raph 2 and Article PE222& Section 7 of the *onstitution# 5ue to the opposition of some con-ressmen? members of the *ommission on Appointments& who insisted that the respondent *ommission must first confirm sectoral representati"es before the( could ta.e their oaths and@or assume office as members of the 2n "iew of this de"elopment& M!ecuti"e Secretar( *atalino %acarai-& Hr# transmitted on April 28& 1988& a letter dated April 11& 1988 of the $resident addressed to the *ommission on Appointments submittin- for confirmation the appointments of the four sectoral representati"es# %eanwhile& petitioner in a letter dated April 22& 1988 addressed to Spea.er Ramon E# %itra& Hr# appealed to the 6ouse of Representati"es alle-in-& amon- others& that since Cno attempt was made to sub/ect the sectoral representati"es alread( sittin- to the confirmation process& there is no necessit( for such confirmation& and sub/ection thereto of the present batch would certainl( be discriminator(:#

+3; the *onstitution re=uire the appointment of sectoral representati"es to the 6ouse of Representati"e s to be confirmed b( the *ommission on AppointmentsJ

,es& it is "alid based on Article E22 Section 16 of the *onstitution& which states that appointments made b( the $resident that re=uires the confirmation of the *ommission on Appointments are those belon-in- to the first -roup such as the Ambassador# Dhe commissioner of the 1ureau of *ustoms howe"er does not belon- to the first -roup& therefore it does not an(more need the confirmation of the *ommission on Appointments to be "alid# ;o# Dhe power to appoint is fundamentall( e!ecuti"e or presidential in character# Since the seats reser"ed for sectoral representati"es in para-raph 2& Section 8& Art# E2 ma( be filled b( appointment b( the $resident b( e!press pro"ision of Section 7& Art# PE222 of the *onstitution& it is undubitable that sectoral representati"es to the 6ouse of Representati"es are amon- the Cother officers whose appointments are "ested in the $resident in this *onstitution&: referred to in the first sentence of Section 16& Art# E22 whose appointments are? sub/ect to confirmation b( the *ommission on Appointments 0Sarmiento "# %ison& supra4# $etitioner s appointment was furthermore made pursuant to Art# E22& Section 16& para-raph 2 which -i"es the $resident :the power to ma.e appointments durin- the recess of the *on-ress& whether "oluntar( or compulsor(& but such appointments shall be effecti"e onl( until disappro"al b( the *ommission on Appointments or until the ne!t ad/ournment of the *on-ress#: Dhe records show that petitioner s appointment was made on April 6& 1988 or while *on-ress was in recess 0%arch 26& 1988 to April 17& 19884A hence& the reference to the said para-raph 2 of Section 16& Art# E22 in the appointment e!tended

Section 16 Cal,er&n v$ Carale

Dhis is a petition for prohibition =uestions the constitutionalit( and le-alit( of permanent appointments e!tended b( $resident to *hairman and %embers of ;LR* without submittin- the same to the *ommission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art 218 of the Labor *ode as amended b( RA 6718

Section 16 Manal& v$ Sist&)a

$etitioner& Hesulito Sisto<a =uestion the constitutionalit( and le-alit( of the appointments issued b( former $res# *ora<on A=uino to the respondent senior officers of the $;$ who were promoted to the ran. of *hief Superintendent and 5irector without their appointments submitted to the *ommission on Appointments for

+hether or not con-ress ma( re=uire b( law confirmation b( the *ommission of appointments e!tended b( the $resident to -o"ernment officers additional to those e!pressl( mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec# 6 Art# E22 whose appointments re=uire confirmation b( the *ommission of Appointments +hether or not the appointment of the senior officers of the $;$ is "alid e"en without

to her# 2mplicit in the in"ocation of para-raph 2& Section 16& Art# E22 as authorit( for the appointment of petitioner is& the reco-nition b( the $resident as appointin- authorit(& that petitioner s appointment re=uires confirmation b( the *ommission on Appointments# As a matter of fact& the $resident had e!pressl( submitted petitioner s appointment for confirmation b( the *ommission on Appointments# *onsiderin- that *on-ress had ad/ourned without respondent *ommission on Appointments ha"in- acted on petitioner s appointment& said appointment@nomination had become moot and academic pursuant to Section 23 of the Rules of respondent *ommission and Cunless resubmitted shall not a-ain be considered b( the *ommission#: ;o# court ruled that con-ress ma( not e!pand the list of appointments needin- confirmation## the 1st sentence of Sec 16 of those appointments re=uire confirmation b( the *ommission of Appointments is e!clusi"e& addin- that the list ma( not be e!panded b( statutor( le-islation#

Dhe S* held that the appointments are "alid# Dhe court has the inherent authorit( to determine whether a statute enacted b( the le-islature transcends the limit alienated b( the fundamental law# +hen it does the courts will not hesitate to stri.e down such unconstitutionalit(#

confirmation# Dhe said police officers tool their 3ath of 3ffices and assumed their respecti"e positions# Dhereafter& the 5epartment of 1ud-et and %ana-ement& under the then Secretar( Sal"ador Mnri=ue< 222& authori<ed disbursements for their salaries and other emoluments# Dhe petitioner brou-ht before this petition for prohibition& as a ta! pa(er suit to the S* to assail the le-alit( of sub/ect appointment and disbursement thereof# Section 16 Mati3ag v$ %enipa-& Section 16 #+.in& v$ En,riga 0K2D4 +hen the authorit( is -i"en to the head of colle-ial bodies& it is to the chairman that the authorit( is -i"en and not to the bod(# 6e can appoint onl( officers Clower in ran.:& and not officers e=ual in ran. to him# $etitioners contended that the law could onl( dele-ate to the **$ 1oard the power to appoint officers lower in ran. than the trustees and that Section 6b of $5 18 0*reated *ultural *enter of the $hilippines4 authori<in- the **$ trustees to elect their fellow trustees should be declared unconstitutional#

the confirmation of the *ommission on Appointments#

+3; Sec 6b of $5 18 is unconstitutiona l

Section 16 Pimentel0 4r$ v$ Ermita

+hile *on-ress is in their re-ular session& $resident Arro(o& throu-h M!ecuti"e Secretar( Mduardo Mrmita& issued appointments to respondents as actin- secretaries of their respecti"e departments without the consent of the *ommission on Appointments# After the *on-ress had ad/ourned& $resident Arro(o issued ad interim appointments to respondents as secretaries of the departments to which the( were pre"iousl( appointed in an actin- capacit(# $etitioners senators filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a pra(er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar( in/unction to declare unconstitutional the appointments issued# Dhe( assert that Cwhile *on-ress is in session& there can be no appointments& whether re-ular or actin-& to a "acant position of an office needinconfirmation b( the *ommission on Appointments& without first ha"in- obtained its consent# Respondent secretaries& on the other

+hether or not $resident Arro(o s appointment of respondents as actinsecretaries without the consent of the *ommission on Appointments while *on-ress is in session is constitutional#

,es# Section 6b of $5 18 is inconsistent with Sec 16 of Art E22# Sec 6b of $5 18 empowered the remainin- trustees of the **$ 1oard to fill "acancies& allowin- them to elect their fellow trustees# 3n the other hand& Sec 16 of Art E22 of the 1987 *onstitution allowed heads of departments& a-encies& commissions& or board to appoint onl( Cofficers lower in ran.: than such heads of departments& a-encies& commissions& or boards# Dhus& in so far as it authori<ed the trustees of the **$ board to elect their co? trustees& Sec 6b of $5 18 was unconstitutional because it "iolated Sec 16 of Art E22 of the 1987 *onstitution# Dhe essence of an appointment in an actincapacit( is its temporar( nature# 2t is a stop?-ap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office# 2n case of "acanc( in an office occupied b( an alter e-o of the $resident& such as the office of a department secretar(& the $resident must necessaril( appoint an alter e-o of her choice as actin- secretar( before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office# *on-ress& throu-h a law& cannot impose on the $resident the obli-ation to appoint automaticall( the undersecretar( as her temporar( alter e-o# An alter e-o& whether temporar( or permanent& holds a position of -reat trust and confidence# *on-ress& in the -uise of prescribin=ualifications to an office& cannot impose on the $resident who her alter e-o should be#

hand& maintain that the $resident can issue appointments in an actin- capacit( to department secretaries without the consent of the *ommission on Appointments e"en while *on-ress is in session# Section 16 A3as 8i,a v$ Senate &. the Philippines Section 17 Lacs&n9 Magallanes C&$0 Inc$ vs$ 4&se Pa:&0 et$ al$ 0;ML4

Dhe power of control has been -i"en to the $resident o"er all e!ecuti"e officers# 2mplicit then is his authorit( to -o o"er& confirm& modif( or re"erse the action ta.en b( his department secretaries# At the case at bar& as the M!ecuti"e Secretar( acts b( authorit( of the $resident& his decision is that of the $resident s#

Section 17 Mace,a v$ Macaraig0 4r

Section 17 #&*+e v$ Direct&r &. Lan,s

2n 1932& Hose %a-allanes was a permittee and actual occupant of a 1&103?hectare pasture land situated in 5a"ao# 3n 1983& %a-allanes ceded his ri-hts and interests to a portion of the abo"e public land to the plaintiff# 3n 1984& the same was officiall( released from the forest <one as pasture land and declared a-ricultural land# 3n 1988& Hose $aUo and nineteen other claimants applied for the purchase of 90 hectares of the released area# $laintiff in turn filed its own sales application co"erin- the entire released area# Dhe 5irector of Lands& followin- an in"esti-ation of the conflict& rendered a decision on 1986 -i"indue course to the application of plaintiff corporation# +hen the case was ele"ated to the $resident of the $hilippines& M!ecuti"e Secretar( Huan $a/o& b( authorit( of the president& declared that it would be for public interest that appellants& who are mostl( landless farmers& be allocated that portion on which the petitioner ha"e made impro"ements# Dhe ;ational $ower *orporation was -i"en ta! e!emption b( RA 388 howe"er when $5 1931 was passed& it remo"ed its ta! e!emption# Dhere was a reser"ation& howe"er& that the president or the %inister of 7inance upon recommendation b( the 7iscal 2ncenti"es Re"iew 1oard 072R14 ma( restore or modif( the e!emption which 72R1 did# Dhe same was appro"ed b( *or( throu-h e!ec sec %acarai- actin- as her alter e-o# %aceda opined the 72R1 resolution a"errin- that the power -ranted to the 72R1 is an undue dele-ation of le-islati"e power# 6is claim was stren-thened b( 3pinion 77 issued b( 53H Secretar( 3rdoUe<# $etitioner =uestions the decision of the Assistant M!ecuti"e Secretar( of the $resident for sustainin- the decision of the 5irector of Lands and o"errulin- the Secretar( of A-ricultural and ;atural Resources# 6e *laims that the Assistant

%a( the M!ecuti"e Secretar(& actin- b( authorit( of the $resident& re"erse a decision of the 5irector of Lands that had been affirmed b( the M!ecuti"e Secretar( of A-riculture and ;atural ResourcesJ

,MS# Dhe $resident s dut( to e!ecute the law and control of all e!ecuti"e departments are of constitutional ori-in# ;aturall(& he controls and directs their acts# 2mplicit then is his authorit( to -o o"er& confirm& modif( or re"erse the action ta.en b( his department secretaries# 2t ma( also be stated that the ri-ht to appeal to the $resident reposes upon the $resident s power of control o"er the e!ecuti"e departments# 6e ma( dele-ate to his M!ecuti"e Secretar( acts which the *onstitution does not command that he perform in person# As the M!ecuti"e Secretar( acts b( authorit( of the $resident& his decision is that of the $resident s# Such decision is to be -i"en full faith and credit b( our courts& unless disappro"ed or reprobated b( the *hief M!ecuti"e#

+hether or not the M!ec Sec can re"erse a statute -i"en b( the Sec of HusticeJ

Dhe S* ruled that there is no undue dele-ation of le-islati"e power# 7irst of all& since the ;$* is a )3** and is non?profit it can be e!empt from ta!ation# Also& 3pinion 77 issued b( 53H Sec 3rdoUe< was o"erruled b( %acarai-# Dhis action b( %acarai- is "alid because the M!ecuti"e Secretar(& b( authorit( of the $resident& has the power to modif(& alter or re"erse the construction of a statute -i"en b( a department secretar( T pursuant to the president s control power# ;o& it is stated in the *onstitution that the $resident shall ha"e control o"er all e!ecuti"e departments& bureaus& and offices# Dhe assistant e!ecuti"e secretar( was merel( actin- on behalf of the president& therefore it is understood that

+@; there is -ra"e abuse of discretion#

M!ecuti"e Secretar( of the $resident acted with -ra"e abuse of discretion# Section 17 Ang9Angc& v$ Castill& Dhe $epsi?*ola *o# re=uested for the withdrawal of $epsi?cola concentrates which were not co"ered b( an( *entral 1an. release certificate# 2ts counsels approached *ollector of *ustoms An-?An-co to secure the immediate release of the concentrates& but ad"ised the counsel to secure the release certificate from the ;o?5ollar 2mport 3ffice# Dhe ;on?5ollar 2mport 3ffice wrote a letter to An-?An-co which stated that his office had no ob/ection to the release of the concentrates but could not ta.e action on the re=uest& as it was not in their /urisdiction# An-? An-co telephoned the Secretar( of 7inance who e!pressed his appro"al of the release on the basis of said certificate# *ollector An-?An-co finall( released the concentrates# +hen *ommissioner of *ustoms learned of the release he filed an administrati"e complaint a-ainst *ollector of *ustoms An-?An-co# 7or three (ears& An-?An-co had been dischar-in- the duties of his office# Dhen& M!ecuti"e Secretar( *astillo& b( authorit( of the $resident& rendered his /ud-ment a-ainst the petitioner# +3; the $resident is empowered to remo"e officers and emplo(ees in the classified ci"il ser"ice#

Section 17 NAMA#CO v$ Arca

Dhe )eneral %ana-er issued Administrati"e 3rder ;o# 137& series of 1960& holdin- Ari"e -uilt( of the char-es and dismissin- him from the ser"ice& for "iolatin- %ana-ement %emorandum 3rder# Ari"e appealed from the decision of the ;A%AR*3 to the $resident of the $hilippines# then M!ecuti"e Secretar( Ramon A# 5ia<& presumabl( actin- for the $resident& handed down a decision settin- aside Resolution ;o# 884?60 of the ;A%AR*3 and reinstatin- Huan D# Ari"e to his former position# the ;A%AR*3& throu-h its )eneral %ana-er& in a letter addressed to the $resident& as.ed for a reconsideration of the decision orderin- Ari"eOs reinstatement# 2n that letter it was contended that the 3ffice of the $resident had no /urisdiction to re"iew an( decision of the ;A%AR*3 1oard of

+hether the $resident of the $hilippines had authorit( to re"erse the decision of the 1oard of 5irectors of the ;A%AR*3 and to order the reinstatement of Huan D# Ari"e#

whate"er decision the assistant e!ecuti"e secretar( -i"es comes from the $resident himself# Dhe $resident does not ha"e the power to remo"e officers or emplo(ees in the classified ci"il ser"ice# 2t is clear that under the present pro"ision of the *i"il Ser"ice Act of 1989& the case of petitioner comes under the e!clusi"e /urisdiction of the *ommissioner of *i"il Ser"ice& and ha"in- been depri"ed of the procedure laid down in connection with the in"esti-ation and disposition of his case& it ma( be said that he has been depri"ed of due process as -uaranteed b( said law# Dhe $ower of control of the $resident ma( e!tend to the $ower to in"esti-ate& suspend or remo"e officers and emplo(ees who belon- to the e!ecuti"e department if the( are presidential appointees but not with re-ard to those officers or emplo(ees who belon- to the classified ser"ice for as to them that inherent power cannot be e!ercised# Dhis is in line with the pro"ision of our *onstitution& which sa(s that 9the *on-ress ma( b( law "est the appointment of the inferior officers& in the $resident alone& in the courts& or in heads of department9 0Article E22& Section 10 F3G& *onstitution4# +ith re-ard to these officers whose appointments are "ested on heads of departments& *on-ress has pro"ided b( law for a procedure for their remo"al precisel( in "iew of this constitutional authorit(# 3ne such law is the *i"il Ser"ice Act of 1989# Dhe *ourt is& howe"er& of the "iew that the $resident of the $hilippines does not onl( e!ercise super"ision but also control o"er all -o"ernment?owned and controlled corporations includin- the ;A%AR*3A hence& he ma( re"iew& re"ise& alter& modif( or nullif( the decision or action of the 1oard of 5irectors of an( -o"ernment?owned and controlled corporation and substitute his /ud-ment for that of the latter#

Section 17 Dril&n v$ Lim

5irectors remo"in-& suspendin-& or otherwise disciplinin- an( of its subordinate emplo(ees# $ursuant to Section 187 of the Local )o"ernment *ode& the Secretar( of Hustice had& on appeal to him of four oil companies and a ta!pa(er& declared 3rdinance ;o# 7794& otherwise .nown as the %anila Re"enue *ode& null and "oid for non?compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of ta! ordinances and for containin- certain pro"isions contrar( to law and public polic(# 2n a petition for certiorari filed b( the *it( of %anila& the Re-ional Drial *ourt of %anila re"o.ed the Secretar( s resolution and sustained the ordinance& holdin- inter alia that the procedural re=uirements had been obser"ed# %ore importantl(& it declared Section 187 of the Local )o"ernment *ode as unconstitutional because of its "esture in the Secretar( of Hustice of the power of control o"er local -o"ernments in "iolation of the polic( of local autonom( mandated in the *onstitution and of the specific pro"ision therein conferrin- on the $resident of the $hilippines onl( the power of super"ision o"er local -o"ernments# Dhe court cited the familiar distinction between control and super"ision& the first bein- Cthe power of an officer to alter or modif( or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the /ud-ment of the former for the latter&: while the second is Cthe power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers perform their functions is accordance with law#:

014 whether or not Section 187 of the Local )o"ernment *ode is unconstitutiona lA and 024 whether or not the Secretar( of Hustice can e!ercise control& rather than super"ision& o"er the local -o"ernment

Section 17 4as&n v$ T&rres

Dhe power of the president o"er local -o"ernments is onl( one -eneral super"ision#

Dhe %andaue *it( Auditor issued notices of disallowance to herein petitioners& in e!cess of the amount authori<ed b( Local 1ud-et *ircular ;o# 88 of 51% which pro"ided that& C!!! additional allowances in the form of honorarium at rates not e!ceedin- $1&000 in pro"inces and

+3; L1* 88 of the 51% is "oid for it -oes be(ond super"isor( powers of the

Dhe /ud-ment of the lower court is re"ersed in so far as its declaration that Section 187 of the Local )o"ernment *ode is unconstitutional but affirmed the said lower court s findin- that the procedural re=uirements in the enactment of the %anila Re"enue *ode ha"e been obser"ed# Section 187 authori<es the Secretar( of Hustice to re"iew onl( the constitutionalit( or le-alit( of the ta! ordinance and& if warranted& to re"o.e it on either or both of these -rounds# +hen he alters or modifies or sets aside a ta! ordinance& he is not also permitted to substitute his own /ud-ment for the /ud-ment of the local -o"ernment that enacted the measure# Secretar( 5rilon did set aside the %anila Re"enue *ode& but he did not replace it with his own "ersion of what the *ode should be# An officer in control la(s down the rules in the doin- of an act# 2t the( are not followed& he ma(& in his discretion& order the act undone or re?done b( his subordinate or he ma( e"en decide to do it himself# Super"ision does not co"er such authorit(# Dhe super"isor or superintendent merel( sees to it that the rules are followed& but he himself does not la( down such rules& nor does he ha"e the discretion to modif( or replace them# 2n the opinion of the *ourt& Secretar( 5rilon did precisel( this& and no more nor less than this& and so performed an act not of control but of mere super"ision# Re-ardin- the issue on the non?compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of the %anila Re"enue *ode& the *ourt carefull( e!amined e"er( e!hibit and a-ree with the trial court that the procedural re=uirements ha"e indeed been obser"ed# Dhe onl( e!ceptions are the postin- of the ordinance as appro"ed but this omission does not affect its "alidit(& considerinthat its publication in three successi"e issues of a newspaper of -eneral circulation will satisf( due process# Dhe *ourt declared L1* 88 to be null and "oid# Althou-h the *onstitution -uarantees autonom( to L)Is& the e!ercise of local autonom( remains sub/ect to the power of control b( *on-ress and the power of super"ision b( the $resident#

cities and $700 in municipalities be -ranted !!! C# $etitioner /ud-es ar-ue that Local 1ud-et *ircular ;o# 88 is "oid for infrin-in- on the local autonom( of %andaue b( dictatin- a uniform amount that an L)I can disburse as additional allowances to /ud-es stationed therein# Dhe( maintained that said circular is not supported b( an( law and therefore went be(ond the super"isor( powers of the $resident#

$residentJ 5oes L1* 88 -oes be(ond the law it see.s to implementJ

Section 17 Da,&le v$ COA

Dhe power of the president o"er local -o"ernments is onl( one -eneral super"ision#

Dhe %andaue *it( Auditor issued notices of disallowance to herein petitioners& in e!cess of the amount authori<ed b( Local 1ud-et *ircular ;o# 88 of 51% which pro"ided that& C!!! additional allowances in the form of honorarium at rates not e!ceedin- $1&000 in pro"inces and cities and $700 in municipalities be -ranted !!! C# $etitioner /ud-es ar-ue that Local 1ud-et *ircular ;o# 88 is "oid for infrin-in- on the local autonom( of %andaue b( dictatin- a uniform amount that an L)I can disburse as additional allowances to /ud-es stationed therein# Dhe( maintained that said circular is not supported b( an( law and therefore went be(ond the super"isor( powers of the $resident#

+3; L1* 88 of the 51% is "oid for it -oes be(ond super"isor( powers of the $residentJ 5oes L1* 88 -oes be(ond the law it see.s to implementJ

L1* no 88 -oes be(ond the law it see.s to implement# Section 488 of RA 7160& the law that supposedl( ser"es as the le-al basis of L1* 88& allows the -rant of additional allowances to /ud-es Cwhen the finances of the cit( -o"ernment allow#: Dhe said pro"ision does not authori<e settin- a definite ma!imum limit to the additional allowances -ranted to /ud-es# Dhe 51% o"er? stepped its power of super"ision o"er local -o"ernment units b( imposin- a prohibition that did not correspond with the law it sou-ht to implement# 2n other words& the prohibitor( nature of L1* 88 had no le-al basis# Dhe *ourt declared L1* 88 to be null and "oid# Althou-h the *onstitution -uarantees autonom( to L)Is& the e!ercise of local autonom( remains sub/ect to the power of control b( *on-ress and the power of super"ision b( the $resident# L1* no 88 -oes be(ond the law it see.s to implement# Section 488 of RA 7160& the law that supposedl( ser"es as the le-al basis of L1* 88& allows the -rant of additional allowances to /ud-es Cwhen the finances of the cit( -o"ernment allow#: Dhe said pro"ision does not authori<e settin- a definite ma!imum limit to the additional allowances -ranted to /ud-es# Dhe 51% o"er? stepped its power of super"ision o"er local -o"ernment units b( imposin- a prohibition that did not correspond with the law it sou-ht to implement# 2n other words& the prohibitor( nature of L1* 88 had no le-al basis#

Section 17 DEN# v$ DEN# Empl&-ees Section 17 Villal+) v$ ;al,ivar

0%MLE2;4 Eillalu< was appointed as the Administrator of the %otor Eehicles 3fficeA howe"er& *on-ressman Roces alle-ed that Eillalu< was an ineffecti"e leader and had caused losses to the -o"ernment# Dhus& he indorsed the remo"al of Eillalu<# Dhe M!ecuti"e Secretar( suspended Eillalu< and ordered a committee to in"esti-ate the matter# After in"esti-ation& it was recommended that she be remo"ed# Dhe president then issued an A3 remo"in- Eillalu< from his post# Eillalu< a"erred that the president has no /urisdiction to remo"e him# 536 launched 6ealth Sector Reform A-enda to reform the local health s(stem# M!ecuti"e 3rder +hether or not Eillalu< is under the /urisdiction of the $resident to be remo"ed considerinthat he is an appointee of the president# +3; M3 no# 102 "iolates Dhe $resident of the $hilippines has /urisdiction to in"esti-ate and remo"e him since he is a presidential appointee& who belon-s to the non? competiti"e or unclassified ser"ice under Sec 8 of RA 2260# Dherefore& he can onl( be in"esti-ated and remo"ed from office after due hearin- b( the $resident of the $hilippines under the principle that Cthe power to remo"e is inherent in the power to appoint#:

Section 17 T&n,& Me,ical

Dhe e!press -rant of the power of control to the

;o# Dhe ar-ument that the M3 102 is in e!cess of the presidential authorit( due is without basis#

Center Empl&-ees v$ CA

$resident /ustifies an e!ecuti"e action to carr( out the reor-ani<ation of an e!ecuti"e office under a broad authorit( of law#

Section 17 Malaria Empl&-ees v$ E1ec+tive Secretar-

102 was the order to redirect the functions and operations of the 5epartment of health which pro"ided for the chan-es in the roles functions and or-ani<ational processes of the 536# Inder the assailed order& 536 refocused its mandate from bein- the sole pro"ider of health ser"ices to bein- a pro"ider of specific health ser"ices and technical assistance& as a result of bein- the de"olution of basic ser"ices to local -o"ernment units# $etitioners alle-ed that this M3 is in e!cess of the $residential Authorit(# $etitioner %alaria Mmplo(ees and +or.ers Association of the $hilippines& 2nc# 0%M+A$4 is a union of affected emplo(ees in the %alaria *ontrol Ser"ice of the 5epartment of 6ealth# %M+A$ filed a complaint& doc.eted as *i"il *ase ;o# 00?98793& with the Re-ional Drial *ourt of %anila see.in- to nullif( 5epartment %emorandum ;o# 187& the ;3S*A and the $lacement List of 5epartment of 6ealth $ersonnel and other issuances implementinM#3# ;o# 102#

Section 17& Article 7 of the *onstitution#

Dhe constitution clearl( states that the president shall ha"e control of all e!ecuti"e departments& bureaus and offices# 7urthermore& 536 is amonthe cabinet le"el departments enumerated under the 1oo. 2E of the Administrati"e code mainl( tas.ed with the functional distribution of the wor. of the president#

+hether the $resident has authorit( under Section 17& Article E222 of the *onstitution to effect a reor-ani<ation of a department under the e!ecuti"e branchJ +3; the $resident s constitutional power to re"iew the decisions of department secretaries will be rendered illusor( if said decisions ma( be re"iewed onl( b( the *ourt of Appeals#

,es# Reor-ani<ation can in"ol"e the reduction of personnel& consolidation of offices& or e"en abolition of positions b( reason of econom( or redundanc( of functions# +hile the power to abolish an office is -enerall( lod-ed with the le-islature& the authorit( of the $resident to reor-ani<e the e!ecuti"e branch& which ma( include such abolition& is permissible under present laws#

Section 17 Or&sa v$ #&a Section 17 Phillips Sea.&&, v$ %OI

01213,4

$hillips Seafood 0$hilippines4 *orporation is a domestic corporation en-a-ed in the e!port of processed crabmeat and other seafood products# $etitioner was incorporated on 20 3ctober 1992 and re-istered under its pre"ious corporate name of $hillips Seafood %asbate& 2nc# $etitioner was -ranted an Income Tax Holiday 02D64 for six (6) (ears be-innin- Hul( 1993 to Hul( 1999& for locatin- in a less?de"eloped area in accordance with Article 40 of M!ecuti"e 3rder 0M#3#4 ;o# 226& otherwise .nown as Dhe 3mnibus 2n"estments *ode of 1987# 3n 5ecember 14& 1998& petitioner ac=uired the plant& facilities& e=uipment& and other assets belon-in- to $S$2&

Dhe e!ecuti"e power of control o"er the acts of department secretaries is laid down in Section 17& Article E22 of the 1987 *onstitution# Dhe power of control has been defined as the 9power of an officer to alter or modif( or nullif( or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the /ud-ment of the former for that of the latter:# Such 9e!ecuti"e control9 is not absolute# Dhe definition of the structure of the e!ecuti"e branch of -o"ernment& and the correspondin- de-rees of administrati"e control and super"ision is not the e!clusi"e preser"e of the e!ecuti"e# 2t ma( be effecti"el( limited b( the *onstitution& b( law& or b( /udicial decisions# All the more in the matter of appellate procedure as in the instant case# Appeals are remedial in natureA hence& constitutionall( sub/ect to this *ourt s rule?ma.inpower# Dhe Rules of $rocedure was issued b( the *ourt pursuant to Section 8& Article E222 of the

includin- its pic.in- facilities in *ebu *it(# 2n 3ctober 1999& petitioner relocated its plant and office in 1acolod *it( to 1aran-a( 1anica& Ro!as *it(# 2n a letter dated 18 ;o"ember 1999& respondent 132 informed petitioner that the latter s 2D6 would be e!tended until 12 Au-ust 2000& pursuant to Article 39 0a4 014 0ii4 of M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 226# 2n a letter dated 28 September 2003& respondent 132 informed petitioner that the 2D6 pre"iousl( -ranted would be applicable onl( to the period from 13 Au-ust 1999 to 21 3ctober 1999 or before petitioner s transfer to a 9not less? de"eloped area#9 3n 03 %a( 2004& petitioner recei"ed b( fa! 132 s letter den(in- its motion for reconsideration# $etitioner ele"ated the matter to the 3ffice of the $resident& which dismissed petitioner s appeal on the -round of lac. of /urisdiction in a 5ecision dated 22 September 2004# Dhe 3ffice of the $resident li.ewise denied petitioner s motion for reconsideration in an 3rder dated 14 %arch 2008#$etitioner recei"ed a cop( of the order on 01 April 2008# Dhe petition ar-ued that the e!ecuti"e power of control o"er the acts of officials under the 3ffice of the $resident is superior to the appellate /urisdiction of the *ourt of Appeals o"er decisions of =uasi?/udicial a-encies under the 1997 Rules of *i"il $rocedure#
Section 17 %ira&g& v$ Tr+th C&mmissi&n $res# ;o(no( A=uino created $hilippine Druth *ommission b( "irtue of M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 1# Said e!ecuti"e order was =uestioned b( herein petitioners as "iolati"e of e=ual protection clause insofar as its ob/ecti"e is to in"esti-ate lar-e +3; M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 1 "iolates the constitutional

*onstitution& which e!pressl( empowers the Supreme *ourt to promul-ate rules concerninthe procedure in all courts#

,es# M!ecuti"e 3rder ;o# 1 should be struc. down as "iolati"e of the e=ual protection clause# Dhe clear mandate of the en"isioned truth commission is to in"esti-ate and find out the truth 9concernin- the reported cases of -raft and

scale -raft and corruption durin- the pre"ious administration under former president Arro(o# $etitioners contend that it did not meet the re=uisites for a "alid classification as it sin-les out the pre"ious administration as its sole ob/ect# Respondent& on the other hand& defended that it was based on widespread reports of lar-e scale -raft and corruption in the pre"ious administration which ha"e eroded public confidence in public institutions# Section 18 Lansang vs$ (arcia Section 18 A3erca v$ Ver Section 18 I%P v$ ;am&ra 0H*4 0K2D4 Dhe $resident shall be the *ommander?in?*hief of all armed forces of the $hilippines and whene"er it becomes necessar(& he ma( call out such armed forces to pre"ent or suppress lawless "iolence& in"asion& or rebellion# Accordin- to 21$& no emer-enc( e!ists that would /ustif( the need for the callin- of the militar( to assist the $olice force# 2t contends that no lawless "iolence& in"asion or rebellion e!ist to warrant the callin- of the marines# 7urthermore& it contends that the declaration of a state of rebellion cannot be an e!ception to the -eneral rule on the allocation of the -o"ernmental powers#

-uarant( of e=ual protection of the laws

corruption durin- the pre"ious administration9 onl(#

*an the $resident call out the Armed 7orces of the $hilippines

Section 18& Art E22 of the *onstitution e!pressl( pro"ides that Cthe $resident shall be the *ommander?in?*hief of all armed forces of the $hilippines and whene"er it becomes necessar(& he ma( call out such armed forces to pre"ent or suppress lawless "iolence& in"asion or rebellion# # # C Dhe factual necessit( of callin- out the armed forces is somethin- that is for the $resident to decide# 6e has a "ast intelli-ence networ. to -ather information& some of which ma( be classified as hi-hl( confidential or affectin- the securit( of the state# 2n the e!ercise of the power to call& on?the?spot decisions ma( be imperati"el( necessar( in emer-enc( situations to a"ert -reat loss of human li"es and mass destruction of propert(#

Section 18 Lacs&n v$ Pere) Section 18 Sanla7as v$ E1ec+tive Secretar-

0%MLE2;4 Some three hundred /unior officers and enlisted men of the Armed 7orces of the $hilippines 0A7$4 stormed into the 3a.wood $remiere apartments in %a.ati *it( in the middle of the ni-ht# 2n the wa.e of the 3a.wood occupation& the $resident issued later in the da( $roclamation ;o# 427 and )eneral 3rder ;o# 4& both declarin- 9a state of rebellion9 and callin- out the Armed 7orces to suppress the rebellion 3n 7ebruar( 24& 2006& as the 7ilipino nation celebrated the 20th Anni"ersar( of the M5SA $eople $ower 2& $resident Arro(o issued $$ 1017& implemented b( )#3# ;o# 8& declarin- a +hether the president can declare a state of rebellion# Section 18& Article E22 does not e!pressl( prohibit the $resident from declarin- a state of rebellion# ;ote that the *onstitution "ests the $resident not onl( with *ommander?in?*hief powers but& first and foremost& with M!ecuti"e powers# Dhe $residentOs authorit( to declare a state of rebellion sprin-s in the main from her powers as chief e!ecuti"e and& at the same time& draws stren-th from her *ommander?in?*hief powers# $$ 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call b( the $resident for the A7$ to pre"ent or suppress Lawless "iolence# Dhe proclamation is sustained b( Section 18& Article E22 of the

Section 18 #an,&l. S$ Davi, v$ (l&ria Macapagal9

Dhe $resident ma( call the Armed 7orces to pre"ent or suppress lawless "iolence& in"asion or rebellion#

+hether the issuance of $$ 1017 is *onstitutional#

Arr&-&

state of national emer-enc(# 2n their presentation of the factual bases of $$ 1017 and )#3# ;o# 8& respondents stated that the pro!imate cause behind the e!ecuti"e issuances was the conspirac( amon- some militar( officers& leftist insur-ents of the ;ew $eople s Arm(& and some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate $resident Arro(o# Dhe( considered the aim to oust or assassinate the $resident and ta.e?o"er the reins of -o"ernment as a clear and present dan-er# $etitioners 5a"id and Llamas were arrested without warrants on 7ebruar( 24& 2006 on their wa( to M5SA# %eanwhile& the office of the newspaper 5ail( Dribune& which was percei"ed to be anti?Arro(o& was searched without warrant at about 1>00 A#%# on 7ebruar( 28& 2006# Sei<ed from the premises T in the absence of an( official of the 5ail( Dribune e!cept the securit( -uard of the buildinT were se"eral materials for publication# Dhe law enforcers& a composite team of $;$ and A7$ officers& cited as basis of the warrantless arrests and the warrantless search and sei<ure was $residential $roclamation 1017 issued b( then $resident )loria %acapa-al?Arro(o in the e!ercise of her constitutional power to call out the Armed 7orces of the $hilippines to pre"ent or suppress lawless "iolence# 0R6MA4 01213,4 3n ;o"ember 24& 2009& the da( after the -ruesome massacre of 87 men and women& then $resident )loria %acapa-al?Arro(o issued $roclamation 1946& placin- Cthe $ro"inces of %a-uindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the *it( of *otabato under a state of emer-enc(:# She directed the A7$ and the $;$ Cto underta.e such measures as ma( be allowed b( the *onstitution and b( law to pre"ent and suppress all incidents of lawless "iolence: in the named places# Inder A3 273& she also dele-ated to the 52L) the super"ision of the AR%%# Dhe petitioners claimed that the $resident s issuances encroached the AR%% s autonom(& that it constitutes an in"alid e!ercise of +3; there is factual basis on the callinout of the Armed 7orces#

*onstitution# 6owe"er& $$ 1017 s e!traneous pro"isions -i"in- the $resident e!press or implied power to issue decrees to direct A7$ to enforce obedience to all laws e"en those not related to lawless "iolence as decrees promul-ated b( the $residentA and to impose standards on media or an( form of prior restraint on the press& are ultra "ires and unconstitutional# Dhe *ourt also rules that under section 17& article P22 of the constitution& the $resident& in the absence of a le-islation& cannot ta.e o"er pri"atel(?owned public utilit( and pri"ate business affected with public interest#

Section 18 Davi, v$ Ermita Section 18 (+,ani v$ Senga Section 18 Ampat+an v$ P+n&

,es# Dhe $resident s call on the armed forces to pre"ent or suppress lawless "iolence sprin-s from the power "ested in her under Section 18& Article E22 of the *onstitution# +hile it is true that the *ourt ma( in=uire into the factual bases for the $resident s e!ercise of the abo"e power& unless it is shown that such determination was attended b( -ra"e abuse of discretion& the *ourt will accord respect to the $resident s /ud-ment#

Section 19 Crist&3al v$ La3ra,&r

emer-enc( powers& and that the $resident had no factual basis for declarin- a state of emer-enc(& especiall( in the $ro"ince of Sultan Kudarat and the *it( of *otabato& where no critical "iolent incidents occurred# Dhe( want $roc# 1946 and A3 273 be declared unconstitutional# Dhe respondents& howe"er& said that its purpose was not to depri"e the AR%% of its autonom(& but to restore peace and order in sub/ect places# 2t is pursuant to her Ccallin- out: power as *ommander?in?*hief# Dhe determination of the need to e!ercise this power rests solel( on her wisdom# Dhe $resident merel( dele-ated her super"isor( powers o"er the AR%% to the 52L) Secretar( who was her alter e-o an( wa(# Dhe dele-ation was necessar( to facilitate the in"esti-ation of the mass .illin-s Santos was con"icted of the crime of estafa# 6e was -i"en pardon b( the president but e"en prior to his pardon he was alread( holdin- the position as the municipalit( president of %alabon notwithstandin- his con"iction# *ristobal& on the other hand& a"erred that Santos should be e!cluded from the list of electors in %alabon because he was alread( con"icted of final /ud-ment Cfor an( crime a-ainst propert(:# Dhis is pursuant to *A 387 of the ;ew Mlection *ode# Dhe lower court presided b( Labrador ruled that Santos is e!empt from the pro"ision of the law b( "irtue of the pardon restorin- the respondent to his Cfull ci"il and political ri-hts& e!cept that with respect to the ri-ht to hold public office or emplo(ment& he will be eli-ible for appointment onl( to positions which are clerical or manual in nature and in"ol"in- no mone( or propert( responsibilit(#:

+hether or not Santos should not be e!cluded as an elector#

2t should be obser"ed that there are two limitations upon the e!ercise of this constitutional prero-ati"e b( the *hief M!ecuti"e& namel(> 0a4 that the power be e!ercised after con"ictionA and 0b4 that such power does not e!tend cases of impeachment# Sub/ect to the limitations imposed b( the *onstitution& the pardonin- power cannot be restricted or controlled b( le-islati"e action# An absolute pardon not onl( blots out the crime committed& but remo"es all disabilities resultinfrom the con"iction# +hen -ranted after the term of imprisonment has e!pired& absolute pardon remo"es all that is left of the conse=uences of con"iction# 2n the present case& while the pardon e!tended to respondent Santos is conditional in the sense that Che will be eli-ible for appointment onl( to positions which a e clerical or manual in nature in"ol"in- no mone( or propert( responsibilit(&: it is absolute insofar as it Crestores the respondent to full ci"il and political ri-hts# Ipon other hand& the su--estion that the dis=ualification imposed in par 0b4 of sec 94 of *A 387& does not fall within the pur"iew of the pardonin- power of the president& would lead to the impairment of the pardonin- power of the president& not contemplated in the *onstitution& and would lead furthermore to the result that there would be no wa( of restorin- the political pri"ile-e in a case of this nature e!cept throu-h le-islati"e action#

Section 19

0H*4

Llamas v$ Or3&s Section 19 Pe&ple v$ Salle Section 19 Dril&n v$ CA

0K2D4 *ommutations -ranted b( the $resident do not ha"e to be in an( specific form# $ri"ate respondent 0)an<on4 who was char-ed with double murder& was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor# Dhereupon& he was made to ser"e si! (ears in the stoc.ades of the militar( but was released in 1978 and put under Chouse arrest: under -uard# Dhe *ourt is of the opinion that )an<on s sentence had been commuted# +3; his sentence effecti"el( commuted to si! (ears ,es# Inder 1973 *onstitution& the Cpardoninpower: of the $resident 0that is to -rant reprie"es& commutations& and pardons& remit fines and forfeiture4 is final and unappealable so is commutation of sentence& in which the *hief M!ecuti"e reduces a sentence# 2t e!tin-uishes criminal liabilit( partiall(& and has the effect chan-in- the penalt( to a lesser one# Dhe fact that he was released after si! (ears and the fact that house arrest is not a penalt( leads to the conclusion that the penalt( had been shortened# Dhe *ourt does not belie"e that commutation of sentence be in specific form#

Section 19 T&rres v$ (&n)ales Section 19 M&nsant& v$ act&ran

0%MLE2;4 %onsanto was the Assistant Dreasurer of *alba(u- *it(# She was char-ed for the crime of Mstafa throu-h 7alsification of $ublic 5ocuments# She was found -uilt( and was sentenced to /ail# 6owe"er& she was -ranted pardon b( %arcos# She then wrote a letter to the %inister of 7inance for her to be reinstated to her former position since it was still "acant# She was also re=uestinfor bac. pa(s# Dhe %inister of 7inance referred the issue to the 3ffice of the $resident and 7actoran denied %onsanto s re=uest a"errin- that %onsanto must first see. appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her former position# Also& %onsanto a"ers that b( reason of the pardon& she should no lon-er be compelled to answer for the ci"il liabilities brou-ht about b( her acts# $etitioner was a teacher with the ran. of $rincipal 2# *on"icted of a criminal offenseA he was sentenced to one (ear imprisonment and dis=ualification to hold public office# Subse=uentl( he was -i"en absolute pardon and restored to Vfull ci"il and political ri-hts# 6e applied for reinstatement and was -i"en the position merel( of classroom teacher# +hether the absolute pardon -ranted b( the $resident entitles %onsanto reinstatement to her former position without need of a new appointment Dhe %inistr( of 7inance throu-h its 5eput( M!ecuti"e Secretar( affirmed that ac=uittal& not absolute pardon& of a former public officer is the onl( -round for reinstatement to his former position Dhe Supreme *ourt stated that the pardon -ranted to petitioner has resulted in remo"in- her dis=ualification from holdin- public emplo(ment but it cannot -o be(ond that# Dhat in order to re-ain her former post as assistant cit( treasurer& she must re?appl( and under-o the usual procedure re=uired for a new appointment# 6er =ualifications and suitabilit( for the public post should be considered to determine whether she can once a-ain be entrusted with public funds because of the offense she has committed# ,es# Dhe absolute dis=ualification from office or ineli-ibilit( from public office forms part of the punishment prescribed under the penal code and that pardon frees the indi"idual from all the penalties and le-al disabilities and restores him to all his ci"il ri-hts# Since the petitioner in the instance was actuall( reinstated and there are no circumstances that would warrant the diminution of his ran.& /ustice and e=uit( dictates that he be -i"en his former ran. of $rincipal 2#

Section 19 Sa3ell& v$ DECS

$ardon frees the indi"idual from all the penalties and le-al disabilities and restores him to all his ci"il ri-hts# Since the petitioner in the instance was actuall( reinstated and there are no circumstances that would warrant the diminution of his ran.& /ustice and e=uit( dictates that he be -i"en his former ran. of

+3; Sabello should be reappointed to the position he held prior to his con"iction#

Section 19 Pe&ple v$ Salle0 4r Section 19 (arcia v$ COA Section 19 Echegara- v$ Sec$ &. 4+stice

$rincipal 2# 0R6MA4 01213,4 3n Hanuar( 4& 1999& the S* issued a DR3 sta(in- the e!ecution of petitioner Leo Mche-ara( scheduled on that same da(# Dhe public respondent Hustice Secretar( assailed the issuance of the DR3 ar-uin- that the action of the S* not onl( "iolated the rule on finalit( of /ud-ment but also encroached on the power of the e!ecuti"e to -rant reprie"e# +hether or not the court abused its discretion in -rantin- a Demporar( Restrainin3rder 0DR34 on the e!ecution of Mche-ara( despite the fact that the finalit( of /ud-ment has alread( been renderedN that b( -rantinthe DR3& the 6onorable *ourt has in effect -ranted reprie"e which is an e!ecuti"e function# ;o# Respondents cited sec 19& art E22# Dhe pro"ision is simpl( the source of power of the $resident to -rant reprie"es& commutations& and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after con"iction b( final /ud-ment# Dhe pro"ision& howe"er& cannot be interpreted as den(in- the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finalit(# Dhe powers of the M!ecuti"e& the Le-islati"e& and the Hudiciar( to sa"e the life of a death con"ict do not e!clude each other for the simple reason that there is no hi-her ri-ht than the ri-ht to life# 7or the public respondents therefore to contend that onl( the M!ecuti"e can protect the ri-ht to life of an accused after his final con"iction is to "iolate the principle of co?e=ual and coordinate powers of the three branches of our -o"ernment#

Section 20 Sp&+ses C&nstantin& v$ C+isia Section 21 !SA E Veterans Ass&ciati&n v$ Treas+rer Section 21 6&rl, "ealth Organi)ati&n v$ A*+in& Section 21 %a-an v$ E1ec+tive Secretar;am&ra

0)A14

0H*4

0K2D4

;o treat( and international a-reement shall be "alid and effecti"e unless concurred in b( at least two?thirds of all the members of the Senate#

Dhe Republic of the $hilippines and the Inited States of America entered into an a-reement called the Eisitin- 7orces A-reement 0E7A4# Dhe E7A consists of a $reamble and nine 094 Articles which pro"ide the mechanism for re-ulatin- the

5oes E7A need the ratification of the Senate

,es& because as to the manner of ratif(in- the treat(& Article E22 Sec 21 pro"ides that& no treat( or international a-reement shall be "alid and effecti"e unless concurred in b( at least two?

circumstances and conditions of IS Armed 7orces and defense personnel in the $hilippines# Section 21 Pimentel v$ E1ec+tive SecretarSection 21 Lim v$ E1ec+tive SecretarSection 21 Secretar- &. 4+stice vs Lanti&n 0%MLE2;4

thirds of all the members of the Senate#

0;ML4

M!tradition is not a criminal proceedin- which will call into operation all the ri-hts of an accused -uaranteed b( the 1ill of Ri-hts# Dhe process of e!tradition does not in"ol"e the determination of the -uilt or innocence of an accused# 6is -uilt or innocence will be ad/ud-ed in the court of the state where he will be e!tradited#

3n Hune 18& 1999& the 5epartment of Hustice recei"ed from the 5epartment of 7orei-n Affairs of the Inited States re=uestin- for the e!tradition of %ar. Himene< for "arious crimes in "iolation of IS laws# 2n compliance with the related municipal law& specificall( $residential 5ecree ;o# 1069 C$rescribin- the $rocedure for M!tradition of $ersons +ho 6a"e committed *rimes in a 7orei-n *ountr(: and the established CM!tradition Dreat( 1etween the )o"ernment of the $hilippines and the )o"ernment of the Inited States of America:& the department proceeded with proceeded with the desi-nation of a panel of attorne(s to conduct a technical e"aluation and assessment as pro"ided for in the presidential decree and the treat(# Dhe respondent re=uested for a cop( of the official e!tradition re=uest as well as the documents and papers submitted therein# Dhe petitioner denied the re=uest as it alle-es that such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature to pro"ide such document as the process is not a preliminar( in"esti-ation but a mere e"aluation# Dherefore& the constitutional ri-hts of the accused are not (et a"ailable#

+3; pri"ate respondent entitled to the two basic due process ri-hts of notice and hearin- durinthe e"aluation sta-e of the e!tradition proceedin-s#

$ri"ate respondent is not entitled of the ri-ht to notice and hearin- durin- the e"aluation sta-e of the e!tradition process# M!tradition is a proceedin- sui -eneris# 2t is not a criminal proceedin- which will call into operation all the ri-hts of an accused -uaranteed b( the 1ill of Ri-hts# Dhe process of e!tradition does not in"ol"e the determination of the -uilt or innocence of an accused# 6is -uilt or innocence will be ad/ud-ed in the court of the state where he will be e!tradited#

Section 21 Vin+-a v$ E1ec+tive SecretarSection 21 %a-an M+na v$ #&m+l&

0R6MA4

01213,4