Article VIIEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTEXECUTIVE POWER—It is the legal and political functions of the President involving the exercise ofdiscretion. It is vested in the President of the Philippines. It is the power to enforce andadminister laws.The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. (Section1, Article VII) In National Electrification Administration vs. CA, G.R. No. 143481,February 15, 2002, the President is vested with the power to execute, administer, andcarry out laws into practical operation. Executive power, then, is the power of carryingout the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance.The President may not veto a law enacted thirty-five (35) years before his or herterm of office. Neither may the President set aside or reverse a final and executoryjudgment of the Supreme Court through the exercise of veto power. (Bengzon vs.Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENTQ U A L I F IC A T I O NS1. Natural-born citizen;2. Registered voter;3. Able to read and write;4. At least 40 years of age on the day of election; and5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding theelection.T E R M O F O F F I C ESix (6) yearsD I S Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S1. Not eligible for any re-election;2. No person who has succeeded asPresident and has served as suchfor more than 4 years shall bequalified for election to the sameoffice at any time (Sec. 4, Art. VII);1. Shall not serve for more than two (2)consecutive terms (Sec. 4, Art. VII)General Disqualifications*a. One who has been declared incompetent or insane by competentauthority;

b. One who has been sentenced by final judgment for:vi. Subversion;vii. Insurrection;viii. Rebellion;ix. Any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of not morethan 18 months; orx. A crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon orgranted amnesty (Section 12, BP 881—Omnibus Election Code)INHIBITIONS AND PROHIBITIONS1. Shall not receive any other emolument from the government or any other source(Section 6, Article VII);2. Shall not hold any other office or employment unless otherwise provided in theConstitution;3. Shall not practice any other profession;4. Shall not participate in any business;5. Shall not be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, orspecial privilege granted by the Government, including GOCCs;6. Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct of office;7. Shall avoid nepotism. (Section 13, Article VII)P R I V I L E G E S1. Official residence;2. Salary is determined by law andnot to be decreased during histenure (Section 6, Article VII);3. Immunity from suit for official acts.1. Salary shall not be decreased duringhis tenure;2. No need for Commission onAppointment confirmation for Cabinetpost (Section 3, Article VII)CANVASSING BOARDCongress (Senate and House of Representatives); in case of tie, Congress bymajority vote shall select.ELECTORAL TRIBUNALSupreme Court (en banc)R E M O V A LImpeachment onlyELECTION—(Section 4, Article VII) Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election forPresident and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.Even after Congress has adjourned its regular session, it may continue to

perform this constitutional duty of canvassing the presidential and vice-presidentialelection results without need of any call for special session by the President. The jointpublic session of both Houses of Congress convened by express directive of Section 4,Article VII of the Constitution to canvass the votes for and proclaim the newly-electedPresident and Vice-President has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it hasaccomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of canvassershas completed its functions it is rendered functus officio. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. JointCommittee of Congress to Canvass the votes cast for President and VP, G.R. No.163783, June 22, 2004)There is no constitutional or statutory basis for COMELEC to undertake aseparate and an “unofficial” tabulation of results, whether manually or electronically. Byconducting such “unofficial” tabulation, the COMELEC descends to the level of a privateorganization, spending public funds for the purpose. This not only violates the exclusiveprerogative of NAMFREL to conduct an “unofficial” count, but also taints the integrity ofthe envelopes containing the election returns and the election returns themselves. Thus,if the COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of the votes cast forthe President and VP, the COMELEC is, with more reason, prohibited from making an“unofficial” canvass of said votes. (Brillantes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June15, 2004)Immunity from suit:After his tenure, the President cannot invoke immunity from suit for civil damagesarising out of acts done by him while he was President which were not performed in theexercise of his official duties. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March2001)Rules on Succession:a. V acancy at the beginning of the termi. Death or permanent disability of the President-elect: VP-elect shall becomePresident

ii. President-elect fails to qualify: VP-elect shall act as President until thePresident-elect shall have qualifiediii. President shall not have been chosen: VP-elect shall act as President until aPresident shall have been chosen and qualified.iv. No President and VP chosen nor shall have qualified, or both shall died orbecome permanently disabled: The President of the Senate, or in case of hisdisability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as Presidentuntil a President or a VP shall have been chosen and qualified. In the event ofinability of the officials mentioned, Congress shall, by law, provide for themanner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until aPresident or VP shall have qualified.At 10 o’clock in the morning of the 3rd day after the vacancy occurs, Congressshall convene without need of a call, and within 7 days enact a law calling fora special election to elect a President and a VP to be held not earlier than 45nor later than 60 days from the time of such call. The bill shall be deemedcertified and shall become a law upon its approval on 3rd reading byCongress. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor thespecial election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancyoccurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential election.b. V acancy during the termi. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of thePresident: VP shall become the PresidentEstrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001, the SC declared thatthe resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by hisleaving Malacañan Palace. In the press release containing his final statement,1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and inorder to begin the healing process (he did not say that he was leaving dueto any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidencyas soon as the disability disappears);3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve themas President (without doubt referring to the past opportunity);4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may comein the same service of the country;5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructivenational spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.The Court declared that the elements of a valid resignation are:1. Intent to resign;2. Act of relinquishment.Both were present when President Estrada left the Palace.

Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of relinquishment—act or omissionbefore, during and after January 20, 2001.Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial evidence—bearing material relevant issues—President Estrada is deemed to have resigned—constructive resignationResignation—may be written, oral, express, or implied, for as long as it is clear it mustbe given legal effect.Vacancy in the office of the VP:Whenever there is vacancy in the Office of the VP during the term for which hewas elected, the President shall nominate a VP from among the Members of the Senateand the HOR who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all theMembers of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Section 9, Article VII)Powers of the President:1. Executive power (Section 1, Article VII)2. Appointing power (Section 16, Article VII)3. Control power (Section 17, Article VII)Section 4, Article X—Power of general supervision over local governments4. Calling-out power, power to place the Philippines under martial law and power tosuspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (Section 18, Article VII)5. Pardoning power, reprieves, commutations, amnesty, remit fines and forfeitures(Section 19, Article VII)6. Borrowing power (Section 20, Article VII)7. Diplomatic/Treaty-making power (Section 21, Article VII)8. Budgetary power (Section 22, Article VII)9. Informing power—State of the Nation Address (Section 23, Article VII)10.Veto power (Article VI)11. Power of general supervision over local governments (Section 4, Article X)12.Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI)13.Unstated Residual Power—not found in the Constitution14.Power to Reorganize the Office of the President (Administrative Code)15.Power of ImpoundmentAPPOINTING POWER—carries with it the Removal PowerAppointment—is the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individualwho is to exercise the functions of a given office.

Designation—simply means imposition of additional duties on a person already in thepublic service.Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154, when a person is merely designatedand not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold office in a temporary capacityand may be replaced at will of the appointing authority. In this sense, a designation isconsidered only an acting or temporary appointment which does not confer security oftenure on the person named.Appointing power is executive in nature. It is vested in the President. The powercarries with it the power to remove except in some cases like Justices of the SupremeCourt, the President appoints them but he cannot remove them. They can only beremoved through impeachment.Officers to be appointed by the President that require the confirmation of Commissionon Appointments: (the list is exclusive)1. Heads of the executive departmentExcept: Vice-President—may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointmentrequires no confirmation. (Section 3, Article VII)2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the ConstitutionExample: JBC, Constitutional Commissions5. All other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwiseprovided by law6. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, not all appointments made by the Presidentneed CA confirmation. Only those enumerated in paragraph 1 of Section 16, Article VIIneed confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The appointment of SalvadorMison as Commissioner of Customs needs no confirmation by the CA, because theCommissioner of Customs is not among the officers mentioned in the 1st

paragraph ofSection 16, Article VII.Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain—refers to

military officers alonePNP is now under the DILG (civilian in character, national in scope)—no longer part ofthe AFP, therefore, no need for CA confirmationSoriano vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003, the Philippine Coast Guard(PCG) is no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the AFP but is not under the DOTC, acivilian agency, the promotion and appointment of respondent officers of the PCG willnot require confirmation by the CA.Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254, Article 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA6715, insofar as it requires the confirmation by the CA of the appointment of the NLRCChairman and commissioners, is unconstitutional because it violates Section 16 ofArticle VII. The Congress, when they enacted the law, added to the exclusive listanother category of officers to be appointed by the President that need the confirmationof the CA.Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239—a law was enacted creating the PNP, RA 6795. Itprovides that the Director, Deputy Director General, and other top officials of the PNPshall be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The SC declared it asunconstitutional.In the above two cases, Congress cannot add/remove anything from the list ofofficers to be appointed by the President that require confirmation of the CA. The list isexclusive. The Congress cannot add or remove anything by a mere legislative act.Officials subject to the Appointment of the President:A. With the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments—1. Heads of the executive department2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the ConstitutionB. Prior recommendation or nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)—1. Members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts2. Ombudsman and hid 5 DeputiesC. Appointment of VP as Member of the Cabinet

D. Appointment solely by the President—1. Those vested by the Constitution on the President alone2. Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law3. Those who may be authorized by law to appoint;4. Those other officers lower in rank whose appointment is vested by law in thePresident aloneAppointing Procedure:1. Nomination by the President;2. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;3. Issuance of commission; and4. Acceptance by appointee. Deemed complete upon acceptance. Pending suchacceptance, which is optional to the appointee, the appointment may still bevalidly withdrawn. Appointment to a public office cannot be forced upon citizenexcept for purposes of defense of the State under Section 4, Article II of theConstitution, as an exception to the rule against involuntary servitude.Classifications:1. Permanent—those extended to persons possessing the requisite eligibility andare thus protected by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.2. Temporary—those given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will andwithout necessity of just cause or a valid investigation, made on theunderstanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a permanentappointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time apermanent choice is made.Temporary appointment and Designation are not subject to confirmation by theCommission on Appointments. Such confirmation, if given erroneously, will notmake the incumbent permanent appointee. (Valencia vs. Peralta, 8 SCRA 692)3. Regular—Appointment by the President when Congress is in session. It takeseffect only after confirmation by the CA, and once approved, continues until theend of the term of the appointee.4. Ad Interim—( 2 n d paragraph of Section 16, Article VII)—Appointment by thePresident when Congress is not in session. It takes effect immediately butceases to be valid if disapproved by the CA or upon the next adjournment ofCongress. It is deemed by-passed through inaction. It is intended to prevent

interruptions in vital government services that would otherwise result from theprolonged vacancies in government offices.It is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and canno longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified intooffice. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission onAppointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itselfmakes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effectiveuntil disapproved by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress.a. Recess—one made while the Congress is not in session, beforeconfirmation by the Commission on Appointment; immediately effective;and ceases to be valid if disapproved or bypassed by CA upon the nextadjournment of Congress;b. Midnight—made by the President before his term expires, whether or notit is confirmed by the CAAd interim appointment disapproved by the Commission onAppointments—can no longer be extended a new appointment. The disapprovalis a final decision of the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of itschecking power on the appointing power of the President. The disapproval is adecision on the merits, being a refusal by the CA to give its consent afterdeliberating on the qualifications of the appointee. Since the Constitution doesnot provide for any appeal from such decision, the disapproval is final andbinding on the appointee as well as on the appointing power. In this instance, thePresident can no longer renew the appointment not because of the constitutionalprohibition on appointment, but because of a final decision by the CA to withholdits consent to the appointment.In the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49, ad interim means “inthe meantime” or “for the time being”. An ad interim appointment means apermanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress isin recess. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn orrevoked at any time. An ad interim appointee who has qualified and assumedoffice becomes at that moment a government employee and therefore part of thecivil service. He enjoys the constitutional protection that he cannot be suspended

or removed except for causes provided by law. The withdrawal or revocation ofan ad interim appointment is possible only if it is communicated to the appointeebefore the moment he qualifies, and any withdrawal or revocation thereafter istantamount to removal from office. Once an appointee has qualified, he acquiresa legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by theConstitution. He can only be removed for cause, after notice and hearing,consistent with the requirements of due process.Ad Interim regularTakes effect immediatelyAppointee assumes office immediatelyand later on the appointment should beconfirmed by the CAMade while Congress is not insessionDoes not take effect immediatelyAppointee assumes office only afterconfirmation by the CAMade when Congress is in sessionThe distinction lies in the effectivity of the appointmentAd interim appointee by-passed by the CA is no longer subject to reappointment.He is deemed to have vacated the office.Case of First Impression2 n d issue in the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo—whether ad interim appointeesby-passed by Commission on Appointments may be subject to re-appointment?The SC held that an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by theCommission on Appointments because of lack of time or failure of the latter toorganize is another matter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not beenfinally acted upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session ofCongress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to giveor withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absentsuch decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a bypassedappointee. This is recognized in Section 17 of the Rules of theCommission on Appointments. Hence, under the Rules, a by-passed

appointment can be considered again if the President renews the appointment.The ad interim appointments and subsequent renewals of appointments ofBenipayo, Borra and Tuason do not violate the prohibition on reappointmentsbecause there were no previous appointments that were confirmed by theCommission on Appointments. A reappointment presupposes a previousconfirmed appointment. The same ad interim appointments and renewal ofappointments will also not breach the 7-year term limit because all theappointments and renewals of appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason arefor a fixed term expiring on February 2, 2008. Any delay in their confirmation willnot extend the expiry date of their terms of office. Consequently, there is nodanger whatsoever that the renewal of the ad interim appointments of thesethree respondents will result in any of the evils intended to be exorcised by thetwin prohibition of the Constitution. The continuing renewal of the ad interimappointment of these three respondents for so long as their term of office expireson February 2, 2008 does not violate the prohibition on reappointments inSection 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.Four (4) Situations where Section 1 (2), Article IX-C will apply:Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution provides: The Chairman and theCommissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of theCommission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, twoMembers for five years, and the last Member for three years, withoutreappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired termof the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated ina temporary or acting capacity.1. Where an ad interim appointee to the COMELEC, after confirmation bythe CA, serves his full 7-year term. Such person cannot be reappointed tothe COMELEC, whether as a member or as a chairman, because he will thenbe actually serving more than 7 years.2. Where the appointee, after confirmation, serves a part of his term andthen resigns before his 7-year term of office ends. Such person cannot bereappointed. Whether as a member or as a chairman, to a vacancy arisingfrom retirement because a reappointment will result in the appointee alsoserving more than seven years.

3. Where the appointee is confirmed to serve the unexpired term ofsomeone who died or resigned, and the appointee completes theunexpired term. Such person cannot be reappointed, whether as member orchair, to a vacancy arising from retirement because a reappointment willresult in the appointee also serving more than seven years.4. Where the appointee has previously served a term less than sevenyears, and a vacancy arises from death or resignation. Even if it will notresult in his serving more than 7 years, a reappointment of such person toserve an unexpired term is also prohibited because his situation will be similarto those appointed under the second sentence of Section 1 (2), Article IX-C ofthe Constitution. This provision refers to the 1st appointees under theConstitution, whose terms of office are less than 7 years, but are barred fromever being reappointed under any situation.In Pimentel, Jr. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 164798, October 13, 2005,Congress commenced their regular session on July 26, 2004, the Commissionon Appointments was constituted on August 25, 2004. Meanwhile, PresidentArroyo issued appointments to respondents as acting secretaries of theirrespective departments. Respondents took their oath and assume duties asacting secretaries. Congress adjourned on September 22, 2004. On September23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to respondents assecretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed in anacting capacity. A petition was filed to declare unconstitutional the appointmentsissued by the President to the respondents as acting secretaries of theirrespective departments without the consent of the Commission on Appointmentswhile Congress is in session. The SC held that as a rule, the writ of prohibitionwill not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, an exception to the rule onmootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable ofrepetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petitiondoes not bar its resolution. The question of constitutionality of the President’sappointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is insession will arise in every such appointment. The office of a departmentsecretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Since a departmentsecretary is an alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office must

necessarily have the President’s confidence. Thus, by the very nature of theoffice of a department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacitya person of her own choice even while Congress is in session. The person mayor may not be the permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make itexpedient that the acting appointee will also be the permanent appointee. Thelaw expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) statesthat: The President may temporarily designate an officer already in thegovernment service or any competent person to perform the functions of anoffice in the executive branch. Thus, the President may even appoint in an actingcapacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the Presidentdeems that person competent.Ad interim appointment Appointment in an acting capacityMade if congress is not in session Made any time there is vacancy, i.e.,whether Congress is in session or notRequires confirmation of CAPermanent in natureAppointee enjoys security of tenureDoes not require confirmation of CATemporary in natureThe appointee does not enjoy securityof tenureLimitations on Appointing Power:1. Prohibition against nepotism—(Section 13, par. 2, Article VII) The spouse andrelatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the Presidentshall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the ConstitutionalCommissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, includinggovernment-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.2. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective unlessrevoked by the elected President within 90 days from his assumption of office.(section 14, Article VII)3. The presidential power of appointment may also be limited by Congress throughits power to prescribe qualifications for public office.

4. The judiciary may annul an appointment made by the President if the appointeeis not qualified or has not been validly confirmed by the Commission onAppointments.5. Section 15, Article VII—2 types of appointment: Two months immediately beforethe next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President orActing President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointmentsto executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice publicservice or endanger public safety.Case of First ImpressionIn Re: Hon. Mateo Valenzuela and Hon. Placido Vallarta, 298 SCRA 409, Section15, Article VII is directed against two (2) types of appointment:1. Those made for buying votes—those appointments made within 2 monthspreceding the Presidential election and are similar to those which are declaredelection offenses in the Omnibus Election Code;2. Those made for partisan considerations—consist of the so-called midnightappointments and those presumed made for the purpose of influencing theoutcome of the presidential election. a. If made within the 2-month election period=election offenseb. If made by an outgoing President before his term of office ends, it is MIDNIGHTappointment.Exception: temporary appointment to executive positionsCase of First ImpressionDe Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA, 94, Mayor Evelyn Abeja run for reelectionbut lost. Before she vacated her office, though, she extended permanent appointmentsto 14 new employees of the municipal government. The incoming mayor, uponassuming office, recalled said appointments contending that these were “midnightappointments” and, therefore, prohibited under Section 15, Article VII of theConstitution. The SC held that the records reveal that when the petitioner brought thematter of recalling the appointments of the 14 private respondents before the CivilService Commission, the only reason he cited to justify his actions was that these were“midnight appointments” that are forbidden by the Constitution. However, the CSCruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition applies only to presidential

appointments. In truth and in fact, there is no law that prohibits local elective officialsfrom making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure.Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July 21, 2006, a statute cannotcircumvent the constitutional limitations on the power to appoint by filling vacancies in apublic office through election by the co-workers in that office. Such manner of fillingvacancies in a public office has no constitutional basis. And since the pertinent sectionis unconstitutional, the President has the power to appoint the trustees by virtue ofSection 16, Article VII which gives the President the power to appoint officers whoseappointments are not provided for by the law.POWER OF REMOVAL—General Rule: This power is implied from the power to appoint.Exceptions: Those appointed by him where the Constitution prescribes certainmethods for separation from public services.Example: Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Justices of the SC—mayonly be removed through impeachmentMembers of the career service of the Civil Service who are appointed by thePresident may be directly disciplined provided that the same is for cause and inaccordance with the procedure prescribed by law.Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose continuity in office dependsupon the pleasure of the President may be replaced at any time, but legally speaking,their separation is effected not by removal but by expiration of their term. (Aparri vs.Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231)POWER OF CONTROL—Sec. 17, Article VII: The President shall have control of all the executive departments,bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.Faithful Execution ClauseAs Chief Executive, the President holds the steering wheel that controls thecourse of her government—she lays down policies in the execution of her plans andprograms, and whatever policy, she chooses, she has her subordinates to implementthem. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)

Control—is the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate haddone in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former forthat of the latter.Supervision—means overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see thatsubordinate officers perform their duties, and if the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them,then the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make themperform these duties.Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or the Alter Ego Doctrine—Acts of the Secretaries of executive departments when performed and promulgated inthe regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the ChiefExecutive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief executive.In the case of DENR vs. DENR Region XII Employees, G.R. No. 149724,August 19, 2003, the power of the President to reorganize the National Governmentmay validly be delegated to his Cabinet members exercising control over a particularexecutive department. Accordingly, in this case, the DENR Secretary can validlyreorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR Regional Offices fromCotabato City Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENRSecretary, as an alter ego of the President, is presumed to be the act of the Presidentbecause the latter had not expressly repudiated the same.However, in the case of Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August15, 2000, the SC held that even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the President,he cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a case filed against him,inasmuch as the questioned acts are not those of the President. The power of control may be exercised by the President only over the acts notover the actor (Angangco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619)POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (Section 4,Article X)—the President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a LGU if he

finds that the latter acted contrary to law. The President or any of his alter egos, cannotinterfere in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts within the parameters of thelaw and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the President or any of his alteregos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a LGUis a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as thedoctrine of separation of powers of the executive and the legislative departments ingoverning municipal corporations. (Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350,December 3, 2002) The President exercises general supervision, not control, over local governments. Thepower is generally to see to it that the LGUs perform their powers and functions inaccordance with law.MILITARY POWERS—Section 18, Article VII:1. The Commander-in-Chief Clause—To call out the Armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasionor rebellion.Organize courts martial for the discipline of the armed forces and create militarycommissions for the punishment of war criminals.Calling-out power—lawless violence declare martial law & suspend the writ of HCRebellion invasion “when the public safetyInvasion rebellion so requires”Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006 (Tinga), the ability of thePresident to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearingbefore Congress pertains to a wholly different and independent specie ofpresidential authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. By traditionand jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are notencumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executiveprivilege or executive control.2. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus—Grounds: invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.

Duration: not to exceed 60 days, following which it shall be lifted unless extendedby CongressDuty of the President: To report action to Congress within 48 hours, personally orin writingThe Congress may revoke or extend, on request of the President, the effectivityof proclamation by a majority vote of all its Members, voting jointly.The suspension applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion oroffenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any personthus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three (3) days, otherwise heshall be released.3. Proclamation of Martial Law—Constitutional safeguards on the exercise of the power of the President toproclaim martial lawa. There must be actual invasion or rebellion;b. The duration of the proclamation shall not exceed 60 days;c. Within 48 hours, the President shall report his action to Congress. ifCongress is not in session, it must convene within 24 hours;d. Congress may, by majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revokethe proclamation, and the President cannot set aside the revocation;e. By the same vote and in the same manner, upon initiative of thePresident, Congress may extend the proclamation if the invasion orrebellion continues and public safety requires it;f. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by anycitizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martiallaw or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or theextension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30days from its filing;g. It does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant thefunctioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize theconfinement of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilianswhere civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend theprivilege of the writ.Olaguer doctrine—aka OPEN COURT DOCTRINE—civilians cannot be tried bymilitary courts if the civil courts are open and functioning (Olaguer vs. MilitaryCommission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54448, May 22, 1987)4 ways for the proclamation or suspension to be lifted:1. Lifting by the President himself;2. Revocation by Congress;

3. Nullification by the SC;4. Operation of law after 60 days.PARDONING POWER—Exercise by the President: Discretionary; may not be controlled by the legislatureor reversed by the courts unless there is violation of the Constitution.Section 19, Article VII is simply the source of power of the President to grantreprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction byfinal judgment. This provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power ofcourts to control the enforcement of their decisions after the finality. In truth, an accusedthat has been convicted by final judgment still possesses collateral rights and theserights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict whobecomes insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in the state ofinsanity. (See Article 79 of the Revised Penal Code)Article 81 of the Revised Penal code, as amended, which provides that thedeath sentence shall be carried out without prejudice to the exercise by the President ofhis executive clemency powers at all times. For instance, the President cannot grantreprieve, i.e., postpone the execution of a sentence to a day certain in the absence of aprecise date to reckon with. The exercise of such clemency power, at this time, mighteven work to the prejudice of the convict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution, andthe applicable statute as when the date of execution set by the President would beearlier than that designated by court. (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA96)1. Pardon—an act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowedfrom punishment which the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.a. Plenary or partialb. Absolute or conditionalConditional pardon—is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign poweror the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former willrelease the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply with the

terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpiredportion of the sentence or an additional one.2. Commutation—reduction or mitigation of penalty3. Reprieve—postponement of sentence or stay of execution4. Parole—release from imprisonment, but without full restoration of liberty, asparolee is in custody of the law although not in confinement5. Amnesty—act of grace, concurred in by the Legislature, usually extended togroups of persons who committed political offenses, which puts into oblivion theoffense itself.Limitations:a. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment;b. Cannot be granted in violations of election laws without favorablerecommendations of the COMELEC;c. Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment (except amnesty);d. Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt;e. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability;f. Cannot restore public offices forfeited.Amnesty Pardonaddressed to political offenses refers to infractions of laws of the state orgranted to a class or classes of personsit need not be acceptedit requires the concurrence of Congressit is a public actit looks backward and puts the offenseinto oblivionordinary offensesgranted to individualsit must be acceptedit does not need the concurrence ofCongressit is a private act of the Presidentit looks forward and relieves the pardoneeof the consequences of the offense Judicial admissionsMatters of judicial notice no need of proofJudicial presumptionsIn Llamas vs. Orbos, pardon is available also to one found guilty of administrativeoffense.Section 19 of Article VII did not distinguish between a criminal and administrativeoffense.Effect of grant of pardon:

In the case of Monsanto vs. Factoran, the accused was convicted ofmalversation thru falsification of official documents. She was granted absolute pardon.She demanded for reinstatement and back salaries. The SC held that pardon maymean forgiveness but not forgetfulness. What was remitted is the penalty and not thefact of one’s guilt. In the eyes of law, she was still a convict.Exceptions:1. Unless the grant expressly so provides for her reinstatement and payment ofback salaries.2. If the grant of pardon was based on the fact of the innocence of the one chargedof the crime.BORROWING POWER—The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republicwith the concurrence of the Monetary Board, subject to such limitations as may beprovided by law. The Monetary Board shall submit to the Congress report on loanswithin 30 days from end of every quarter.Limitations:1. There must be prior concurrence of the Monetary Board2. It is subject to such other limitationsDIPLOMATIC/TREATY-MAKING POWER (Section 21, Article VII)No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurredin by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, ascommonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving orwithholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. (Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R.No. 138570, October 10, 2000)This provision lays down the general rule on treaties or international agreementsand applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties orinternational agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter,coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of theSenate to be valid and effective.

But see Section 25 of Article XVIII. Under this provision, the concurrence of theSenate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutionalrequirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.BUDGETARY POWER—Within 30 days from opening of every regular session, President shall submit toCongress a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts fromexisting and proposed revenue measures.The Congress may not increase the appropriation recommended by thePresident. However, its form, content, manner of preparation of the budget shall beprescribed by Congress.INFORMING POWER—State of the Nation Address (Section 23, Article VII)The President shall address Congress at the opening of its regular session (4th

Monday of July). He may also appear before it at any other time.VETO POWER (Article VI)RESIDUAL POWER— Whatever is not judicial, whatever is not legislative, isresidual power exercised by the President.OTHER POWERS—1. Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI)2. Power to deport aliens3. Consent to deputization of government personnel by COMELEC4. To discipline such deputies5. By delegation from Congress, exercise emergency and tariff powers—Conditions for the exercise of the President of Emergency Powers:a. It can be exercised only in times of war or national emergency;b. There must be a law authorizing the President to exercise emergencypowers;c. It must be for a limited period;d. It must be subject to restrictions which Congress may provide; ande. It must be necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.6. Power to Reorganize the Office of the President—under EO 292, theAdministrative Code of 1987The law grants the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of thePresident in recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his office“to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency”. The Office of the President is the nervecenter of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office must be

capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit tocarry out his directives and policies.Power to reorganize the Office ofthe President [Sec. 31 (2&3), EO292]Power to reorganize the Office of thePresident Proper [Sec. 31 (1), EO292] The President’s power to reorganizeoffices outside the Office of the The President can reorganize theOffice of the president Proper by:President Proper is limited to merelytransferring functions or agencies fromthe Office of the president toDepartments or Agencies, and viceversa.a. Abolishing;b. Consolidating or merging units;c. Transferring functions from oneunit to another.Domingo vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142283, February 6, 2003Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines (MEWAP) vs.Executive Secretary Romulo, G.R. No. 160093, July 31, 2007, the President has theauthority to carry out a reorganization of the DOH under the Constitutions and statutorylaws. This authority is adjunct of his power of control under Article VII, Sections 1 and17. The President’s power to re0organize the executive branch is also an exercise of hisresidual powers. However, the President must exercise good faith in carrying out thereorganization of any branch or agency of the executive department.IMPOUNDMENT POWER—Impoundment refers to the refusal of the President, for whatever reason, tospend funds made available by Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate budgetauthority of any type.Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three (3) principal sources ofthe authority of the President.1. authority to impound given to him either expressly or impliedly by Congress

2. the executive power drawn from the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief3. Faithful Execution ClauseThe proponents insist that a faithful execution of the laws requires that thePresident desist from implementing the law if doing so would prejudice public interest.An example given is when through efficient and prudent management of a project,substantial savings are made. In such a case, it is sheer folly to expect the President tospend the entire amount budgeted in the law. (PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA506)

Article VIIIJUDICIAL DEPARTMENTCONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWERIt is the power to hear and decide cases pending between parties who have theright to sue in courts of law and equity. Corollary to this dictum is the principle of locusstandi of a litigant. He who is directly affected and whose interest is immediate andsubstantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in theoutcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorabledecision in order to warrant an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and justify theexercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065,April 15, 2005)Section 1, Article VIII JUDICIAL POWERThe judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower courts as may beestablished by law.Judicial power includes:1. The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rightswhich are legally demandable and enforceable (TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OFJUDICIAL POWER); and2. To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (GADALEJ) on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the Government. (EXPANDED POWER)

Jurisdiction: The power to hear and decide cases.Section 2, Article VIII—The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, andapportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Courtof its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines thesecurity of tenure of its Members.Constitutional Safeguards that guarantee independence of Judiciary:1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and may not be abolished by law;2. The members of the SC are removable only by impeachment;3. The SC may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate jurisdiction;appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and concurrence;4. The SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel;5. The SC has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts;6. The members of the Judiciary have security of tenure;7. The members of the SC may not be designated to any agency, performing quasijudicialor administrative functions;8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy;9. The SC alone may initiate Rules of Court;10.The SC alone may order temporary detail of judges;11.The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.Fiscal Autonomy—means freedom from outside control. The Judiciary, theConstitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the independence andflexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition ofrestrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional officesallocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscalautonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution butespecially as regards the SC, of the independence and separation of powers uponwhich the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)Appointment to the Judiciary:

Qualifications: Of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. In addition:A. Justices of the SCa. Natural-born citizen;b. At least 40 years of age;c. 15 years or more a judge of a lower court or has been engaged in thepractice of law in the Philippines for the same period.B. Justices of the Court of AppealsSame qualifications as those provided for SC JusticesCongress may prescribe other qualificationsC. RTC Judgesa. Citizen of the Philippines;b. At least 35 years of age;c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has heldpublic office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law asan indispensable requisiteD. MTC, MeTC, MCTC Judgesa. Citizens of the Philippines;b. At least 30 years of age;c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has heldpublic office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law asan indispensable requisite.Procedure for Appointment:1. Appointed by the President from among a list of at least 3 nominees prepared bythe Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for every vacancy.2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submissionof the list.Tenure of Justices and Judges:A. S upreme Court—Hold office until they reach the age of 70 or becomeincapacitated to discharge their duties. They may be removed only throughimpeachment.B. L ower Courts—Hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 orbecome incapacitated to discharge their duties.By majority vote of members who actually took part in the deliberation on theissues and voted thereon, SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lowercourts or order their dismissal.No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines thesecurity of tenure of its Members.JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCILComposition:Ex-Officio Chairman—Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Ex-Officio Members —Secretary of Justice—Representative of CongressRegular Members—Representative of the IBPProfessor of LawRetired Member of SCRepresentative of private sectorSecretary de Officio—Clerk of the Supreme CourtAppointment:The President shall appoint regular members for a 4-year term with the consentof the Commission on AppointmentsPowers and Functions:1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary;2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 Deputies;3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court.SUPREME COURTComposition:Chief Justice and 14 Associates JusticesMay sit:o En Banc; oro In its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 membersAny vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof.Powers of the Supreme CourtA. Original Jurisdiction1. Over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;2. Over petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, mandamus, Quo Warranto, andHabeas Corpus;Certiorari Jurisdiction of the SC—limited to decisions rendered in actions orproceedings taken cognizance of by the Commissions in the exercise of theiradjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions.It does not refer to purely executive powers. Hence, questions arising from theaward of a contract for construction of voting booths can be brought before thetrial court. (Ambil vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398, October 5, 2000)3. Review of factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of theprivilege of writ of habeas corpus.B. Appellate JurisdictionOver final judgments and orders of lower courts in:a. All cases in which constitutionality or validity of any treaty internationalor executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;

b. All cases involving the legality of any tax impost, assessment, or toll, orany penalty imposed in relation thereto;c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower courts is in issue;d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetuaor higher; ande. All cases in which only a question of law is involved.C. Electoral Tribunal for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Contests, over allcontests relating to the election, return and qualification of the President or Vice-President.D. Temporary assignment of judges of lower courts to other stations as publicinterest may require. Not to exceed 6 months without the consent of the judgeconcerned.E. Order change of venue or place of trial, to avoid miscarriage of justiceF. Rule-making power—promulgates rules concerning:1. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights;2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;3. Admissions to the practice of law;4. IBP; and5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.Limitations on rule-making power:a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition ofcases;b. Uniform for all courts of the same grade;c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.In Re: Request for Creation of a Special Division, A.M. No. 02-1-09-SC,January 21, 2002, it was held that it is within the competence of the SupremeCourt, in the exercise of its power to promulgate rules governing the enforcementand protection of constitutional rights and rules governing pleading, practice andprocedure in all courts, to create a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan whichwill hear and decide the plunder case against former President Estrada.Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19,1999, Congress cannot amend the Rules of Court. The SC declared that theConstitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplementrules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power topromulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by theCourt with Congress, more so with the Executive.

G. Power of Appointment—SC appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciaryin accordance with Civil Service law.H. Power of Administrative Supervision—SC shall have administrative supervisionover all courts and personnel thereof.Administrative proceedings before the SC are confidential in nature inorder to protect the respondent therein who may turn out to be innocent of thecharges; it can take years to build a reputation and only a single accusation,although unfounded, to destroy it. (Godinez vs. Alano, A.M. RTJ-98-1409,February 18, 1999)I. Yearly Report—Within 30 days from the opening of each regular session ofCongress, SC shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report onthe operation and activities of the Judiciary. (Section 16, Art. VIII)Cases to be heard by the SC En Banc:1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executiveagreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order,instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;2. Cases raising novel questions of law;3. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;4. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the Civil Service Commission,Commission on Election, and Commission on Audit;5. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer oremployee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any ofthem for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding ten thousand pesos(P10,000.00) or both;6. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division maybe modified or reversed;7. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) membersthereof merit the attention of the court en banc and are acceptable to a majority ofthe actual membership of the court en banc; and8. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership maydeem of sufficient importance to merit its attention. (Firestone Ceramics, Inc. vs.CA, 334 SCRA 465, June 28, 2000)Consultations/Decisions of SC—The conclusions of the SC in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division

shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of theopinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued anda copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Memberwho took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reasontherefor. The same requirements shall observe by all lower collegiate courts. Section 13,Article VIIIThis requirement does not apply to administrative casesSection 14, Article VIII—No decision shall be rendered by any court withoutexpressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. It does not apply to a minute resolution dismissing a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari andmandamus, provided a legal basis is given therein. Neither will it apply to administrativecases.People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002, the trial court’sdecision may cast doubt on the guilt of the accused, not by the lack of direct evidenceagainst the accused but by:1. the trial court’s failure to fully explain the correlation of the facts;2. the weight of the admissibility of the evidence;3. the assessments made from the evidence; and4. The conclusion drawn therefrom, after applying the pertinent law as basis of thedecision.No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the courtshall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. “Lack of merit” is sufficient declaration of the legal basis for denial of petition for reviewor motion for reconsideration.Tichangco vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004, when the Court, afterdeliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments ormotions, decides to deny due course to a petition, and states—in a minute resolution—that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court’sdecision is shown or some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficientcompliance with the constitutional requirement.WRIT OF AMPAROThe Rule on Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

It was drafted pursuant to the constitutional power of the Supreme Court topromulgate rules and regulations for the protection and enforcement of constitutionalrights.WRIT OF AMPARO—it is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act oromission of a public official or office, or of a private individual or entity. The writ coversextralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.It is a writ which may be issued by the courts based on this constitutional powerof the SC to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutionalrights. It is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights.It would compel state agents to look for the missing person and the agents wouldbe held liable if they did not exert adequate effort in finding the person.“amparo”—means protection, from “amparar” meaning “to protect”Who may file?The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person orentitiy in the following order: Any member of the immediate family, namely:i. Spouseii. Childreniii. Parents of the aggrieved party Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved partywithin the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of thosementioned above; or Any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution, if there isno known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrievedparty. The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorizedparties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized partyon behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the rights of all others, observing the orderestablished by the law.Where can be filed?The petition may be filed on any day at any time with the:RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed orany of its elements occurred;Sandiganbayan

Court of Appeals or any Justice of such courtsSupreme Court The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The court, justice or judgeshall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on the face of the petition it ought toissue. It is served on the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by thecourt, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules onsubstituted service shall apply.A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputizedperson who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judgefor contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.Return of the Writ—the respondent shall file a verified written return together with thesupporting affidavits within seventy-two (72) hours.If he fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear thepetition ex parte or even without the appearance of the respondent.RTC—returnable before such court or judgeReturnable before such court or any justice thereof; orSB/CA To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission wascommitted or any of its elements occurredReturnable before such court or any of its justices;SC Before the SB or CA or any of their justices; orTo any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission wascommitted or any of its elements occurredHearing on the Petition—The hearing shall be summary in nature. However, the court, justice or judgemay call for a preliminary conference to clarify or simplify some issues and determinethe possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.Available Interim Reliefs:1. Temporary Protection Order—upon motion or motu proprio, the court, justice orjudge may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of theimmediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accreditedperson or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety2. Inspection Order—issued to any person in possession or control of adesignated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting,

measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object oroperation thereon. The movant must show that the order is necessary toestablish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. Itexpires five (5) days after date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiablereasons.3. Witness Protection Order—the witness may be referred to the DOJ foradmission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, or to othergovernment agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable ofkeeping and securing their safety. Only the first two interim reliefs are available to the respondent after he filed a verifiedmotion supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledgeof the defenses of the respondent, and after due hearing.The Court shall render judgment within 10 days from the time the petition issubmitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantialevidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may bedeemed proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.If the court determines that it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failureof petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives, it shall not dismiss thepetition. The court shall archive it instead. The amparo court may, on its own or uponmotion by any party, order revival of the petition when ready for further proceedings.The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case afterthe lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.Does the filing of the petition preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil oradministrative actions? No. However, when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition forthe writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in thecriminal case, and the procedure under this rule shall govern the disposition of thereliefs available under the writ of amparo.

When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ,the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to apetition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to thedisposition of the reliefs in the petition.POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW—It is the power of courts to test validity of executive and legislative acts if thesame are in accordance with the Constitution. It is an expression of supremacy ofConstitution.Justiciable Question—a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act oromission violative of such right, and a remedy granted by law for said breach of rightPolitical Questions—those questions which, under the constitution, are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionaryauthority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branches of government.Political Question Doctrine has been greatly diminished.Political questions are questions of policy. They involve the wisdom of an act or theefficacy or the necessity of a particular measure. These are questions which are betterleft for the political branches of the government to determine or resolve.Arose from doctrine of separation of powersTwo (2) Types of Political Question1. Those to be decided by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity2. Full discretionary authority has been delegated by the Constitution to theLegislative or Executive branch of the governmentLegislative and Executive—political branches of the government—where laws areenacted and enforcedRECALL- a mode of removing a local official from his post even before his term endsdue to lack of confidence. It is a political question which can not be intruded by thecourts.Ybardone vs. COMELEC- lack of confidence is to be decided by the people thru aspecial recall election

Lawyer's League vs. Aquino—Petitioner questioned the legality of the AquinoGovernment.-the SC dismissed the petition that it has gone outside the ambit of judicial review- the mere presence of the people, without inquiring to their motive in going toEDSA, caused Marcos to fly to Hawaii.Estrada vs. Desierto (2001)The Petition questioned the legitimacy of the assumption of office by then VicePresident GMALawyer's League case was cited by respondents; that the case presented apolitical question, hence not subject to judicial reviewSC held that the case of Lawyer's League is inapplicable; the government offormer President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereignpeople, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that theAquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipinopeople "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended." It is familiarlearning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by peoplepower is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of theconstitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is notrevolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under1987 Constitution. In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the powers of thepresidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.The case at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues forresolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution,notably Sec. 1 of Article II and Sec. 8 of Article VI, and the allocation of governmentalpowers under Section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scopeof presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of

petitioner against prejudicial publicity. Thus, respondent's invocation of the doctrine ofpolitical question is but a foray in the dark.EDSA I EDSA II-involves the exercise of people power ofrevolution which overthrows the wholegovernment-extra constitutional and the legitimacy ofthe new government that resulted from itcannot be the subject of judicial review-involves the exercise of people power offreedom of speech and freedom ofassembly to petition the government forredress of grievances which only affectedthe office of the President-intra constitutional and the resignationof the sitting President that it caused andthe succession of the VP as President aresubject to judicial review-presented a political question -involves legal questionsIBP vs. ZAMORA (2000)The SC said that when the President calls out the armed forces to suppresslawless violence, rebellion or invasion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary powersolely vested in his wisdom. The Court cannot overrule the President's discretion orsubstitute its own. The only criterion is that "whenever it becomes necessary", thePresident may call out the armed forces. In the exercise of the power, on-the-spotdecisions may be necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human livesand mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the armed forces mustbe done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all.Section 18, Article VII- Powers of the President1. Calling out power as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP2. Power to proclaim martial law3. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusCALLING-OUT POWER - full discretionary power of the President. In effect, it isa political question not subject to judicial review UNLESS it can be shown thatthere is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION (GAD) in the exercise of such power.-expanded power of the judicial review-mere abuse of discretion will not do. The abuse must be

grave. To doubt is to sustain the power of thePresident.Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction—capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be patentand gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform aduty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power isexercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.(Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna vs. IAC, February 13, 1989)General Rule: Calling out power is not subject to judicial review and isconsidered a political question.Exception: When there has been a GAD.#s 2 and 3- are not political questions. They are subject to judicial review asexpressly provided in Sec. 18 (3), Article VII:xxxThe SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed byany citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamationof martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or theextension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within30 days from its filing.xxxRandolf David, et al. vs. GMA, et al. (2006)Petitioners failed to rebut the assertion that GMA acted with grave abuse of discretionSC uphold the constitutionality of PP1017 insofar as it constitutes a call by thePresident for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The proclamation issustained by Sec. 18, Art. VII and other relevant jurisprudence. However, PP 1017'sextraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issuedecrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related tolawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to imposestandards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires andunconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Sec. 17, Art. XII, the president, in the

absence of legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and privatebusiness affected with public interest.ultra-vires acts and unconstitutional:a. warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas;b. the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU andNAFLU-KMU members;c. imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press;d. warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures ofsome articles for publication and other materialsSection 23 (2), Article VI:In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to restrictions as it mayprescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared nationalpolicy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shallcease upon the next adjournment thereof.Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. This is evidentin the tenor of the above provision authorizing it to delegate such powers to thePresident. Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it.However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be possible or practicablefor Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of the Constitution deemedit wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the President, subject to certainconditions, thus:(1) There must be war or other emergency(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only(3) The delegation must be subject to restrictions as the Congress mayprescribe(4) The emergency power must be exercised to carry out a national policydeclared by CongressLet it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state ofnational emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take overprivately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The Presidentcannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of

privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Nor can hedetermine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. Likewise, withoutlegislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affectedwith public interest that should be taken over. In short, the President has no absoluteauthority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17, Article XII in theabsence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress.*emergency power must be authorized by Congress (thru an enactment of law)*she is not exercising emergency power because there was no law enacted byCongress authorizing her to exercise such powerGeneral rule: POTESTA DELEGATA NON DELEGARE POTEST- what has beendelegated cannot be re-delegated. It is based on ethical principle that delegatedpowers constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate throughthe instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator’s and/ormanagement contracts, it is not allowed to relinquish or share its franchise, much lessgrant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. In Lim vs. Pacquing, 240SCRA 649, the Court clarified that “since ADC has no franchise from Congress tooperate jai-alai, it cannot, even if it has license or permit from the City Mayor, operatejai-alai in the City of Manila”. By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separatelegislative franchise, and not “ride on” PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally operateon-line internet gambling (Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 144463, January 14,2004).Exceptions: Permissible Delegation of Powers (PETAL)P-eople power thru plebiscite and initiative- (Sec. 32, ART VI; Sec. 10, Art. X; Sec. 2,Art. XVII; RA 6735) Under the 1987 Constitution, there are specific provisions where thepeople have reserved to themselves the function of legislation.Referendum vs. Plebiscite

Referendum Plebiscite-the power of the electorate to approve orreject legislation through an election called-the electoral process by which an initiativeon the Constitution is approved or rejectedfor that purpose by the peopleE-mergency power of the President. (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI)T-ariff Powers to the President. (Sec. 28(2), Art. VI)A-dministrative agencies- “The power of subordinate legislation.”L-ocal government. (RA 7160) “Such legislation (by LG) is not regarded as a transfer ofgeneral legislative power, but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribelocal regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to theinterposition of the superior in cases of necessity” (People vs. Vera). Thisrecognizes the fact that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than thenational lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern, and are in betterposition to enact appropriate legislative measures thereon.Tests for Valid Delegation:1. C ompleteness Test—The law must be complete in all its essential terms andconditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for thedelegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it.2. S ufficient Standard Test—intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’sauthority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstances underwhich it is to be pursued and effected. This is intended to prevent a totaltransference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate.Three (3) Important Functions of Judicial Review1. Checking2. LegitimatingRule on Double Negative—uses the term “not unconstitutional”; the courtcannot declare a law constitutional because it already enjoys a presumption ofconstitutionality3. Symbolic - educating the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protectiongiven by the constitutional guaranteesProclamation No. 1021 was issued lifting PP 1017- it becomes moot and academic butSC did not agree as the case is capable of repetition.Requisites for the proper exercise of Power of Judicial Review

1. Actual case or controversy- must be definite, concrete, bearing upon the legalrelations of parties who are pitted against each other due to their adverse legalinterests.-susceptible of judicial determinationPhilippine courts may not render advisory opinion. There must always be anactual case or controversy EXCEPT: Int'l Court of Justice-principal judicial organ of theUnited Nations- ICJ may render advisory opinions. Its 2 main functions are: (a) todecide contentious cases; and (b) to render advisory opinions upon request of theGeneral Assembly, or the Security Council, or the other organs of the UN whenauthorized by the General Assembly.A request for an advisory is not an actual case or controversy. But an action fordeclaratory relief is proper for judicial determination.The issue raised in the case must not be moot and academic, or because ofsubsequent developments, have become moot and academic.MOOT and ACADEMIC PRINCIPLEGeneral Rule: Court will have to dismiss the case. There is no more actual case to beresolved.Exceptions: (David vs. GMA)a. Grave violation of the Constitutionb. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest isinvolvedc. Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of guiding and controllingconstitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules and the symbolic function toeducate the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by theconstitutional guaranteesd. Case is capable of repetition yet evading review—it presupposes that:i. The life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination,andii. That there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjectedto the same problem

2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party—A proper partyis one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result ofthe act complained of. (LOCUS STANDI)"Legal Standing"- personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party hassustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of governmental act.A party's standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by theCourt in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raised bythe petitioners are of paramount public interest, the Court may, in the exercise of itsdiscretion, brush aside the procedural barrier. (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA110)In Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, Rep.Suplico, et al., and Senator Pimentel were considered as proper parties to contest theconstitutionality of Pres. Arroyo’s proclamation of a “state of rebellion” after theOakwood incident.In IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the petition seeking to nullifythe order of Pres. Estrada for the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the PNPin visibility patrols around Metro Manila area, was dismissed on the ground that the IBPhad no legal standing to question the presidential act.Lim vs. Executive Secretary (2002)—Because of the paramount importance and theconstitutional significance of the issues raised in the Petition, the Court, in the exerciseof its sound discretion, brushed aside the procedural barrier and took cognizance of thepetitions.Information Technology Foundation vs. COMELEC (2004)— the subject matter ofthe case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest; it is of paramountpublic interest and of transcendental importance.Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, the petitioners do not posses the legal

capacity to institute the action for annulment of the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA)because they are without a “present substantial interest”, as distinguished from mereexpectancy, or future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.“present substantial interest” means such interest of a party in the subjectmatter of the action as will entitle him, under substantive law, to recover if the evidenceis sufficient, or that he has a legal title to defend and the defendant will be protected inpayment to or recovery from him.In Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005, the petitioners failed toshow any direct and personal interest in the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan;there was no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustainingsome direct injury as a result of its implementation; and they admitted that they do notseek any affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act against therespondents. Clearly, then, they do not have any legal standing to file the instant suit.In Cutaran vs. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001, the SC refused to give duecourse to a petition seeking to enjoin the DENR from processing the ancestral landclaim of private respondent over a property located at Camp John Hay reservation inBaguio, on the ground that there is no actual or imminent violation of the petitioner’sasserted right. Court will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless therehas been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverseeffect on the legal right of the person contesting its legality. Until such time, petitionersare simply speculating that they might be evicted from the premises at a future time.General rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, itis unconstitutional.Exception: FACIAL CHALLENGE. The statute is absolutely unconstitutional under

no circumstance. But the only time a facial challenge to a statute is allowed is when itoperates in the area of freedom of expression.Invalidation of the statute “on its face”, rather than “as applied” is permitted inthe interest of preventing a chilling effect on freedom of expression.Overbreadth Doctrine—permits a party to challenge the validity of a statuteeven though as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied toothers not before the Courts whose activities are constitutionally protected.In Francisco, Jr. vs. Bayani Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006,a citizen can raise a constitutional question only when 1) he can show that he haspersonally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegalconduct of the government; 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and3) a favorable action will likely redress the injury.3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportune time—generally, the question must be raised in he pleadings; however, in criminal cases, thequestion can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court; in civil cases, thequestion can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for thedetermination of the case itself; and in every case, except where there is estoppel, itcan be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court.In Umali vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 131124, March 21, 1999, the question ofconstitutionality of the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption (PCAGC)was not entertained because the issue was raised by the petitioner only in his motion forreconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It was too late to raise the issue for the firsttime at that stage of the proceedings.4. The decision on the constitutional question must constitute the very LIS MOTA—must be determinative of the case itself/entire controversyIn Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004, in a new

challenge to the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the SC did not find the constitutionalquestion to be the very lis mota presented in the controversy. Every law has in its favourthe presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clearand unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative orargumentative.PERIOD FOR DECISIONSection 15, Article VIII—(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of thisConstitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months from date ofsubmission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC, twelve months (12) for all lowercollegiate courts, and three (3) months for all lower courts.(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filingof the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by thecourt itself.(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signedby the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereofattached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. Thecertification shall state why decision or resolution has not been rendered or issuedwithin said period.(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, withoutprejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof,shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, withoutfurther delay. The above provision does not apply to Sandiganbayan. The provision refers toregular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to theCourt of Appeals.The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals

and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trialcourt.Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. (Re: Problemof Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. 00-8-05-SC, November 28,2001)MEMORANDUM DECISIONS—A specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts in accordance with theprovisions of Section 40, BP 129 on the grounds of:1. Expediency2. Practicality3. Convenience4. Docket status of the CourtTo be valid, it cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of lawof the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decisionis not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandumdecision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for directaccess to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statementattached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum decision authorizedunder Section 40 of BP 129 should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusionsof law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of thedecision.Distinctive Features and Purpose:1. It is rendered by an appellate court.2. It incorporates by reference the findings of facts or the conclusions of lawcontained in the decision, order, or ruling under review. This is to avoidcumbersome reproduction of the decision of the lower court, or portions thereof,in the decision of the higher court. The idea is to avoid having to repeat in thebody of the higher court decision the findings or conclusions of the lower courtsince they are being approved or adopted anyway.3. The purpose is to affirm the decision, although it is not impossible that theapproval of the finding of facts by the lower court may lead to a different

conclusion of law by the higher court. (Yao vs. CA, 344 SCRA 202, October 24,2000)

Article IXCONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONSIndependent Constitutional Commissions:1. Civil Service Commission2. Commission on Elections3. Commission on AuditSafeguards that guarantee the independence of the Commissions:1. They are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by a statute;2. Each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be reduced bystatute;3. Each expressly described as independent;4. Chairmen and members are given fairly long term of office for seven (7) years;5. Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by impeachment;6. Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in an actingcapacity;7. Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively high and may not be decreasedduring continuance in office;8. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy;9. Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules;10.Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications calculated tostrengthen their integrity; and

11. Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance withCivil Service Law.Prohibitions and Inhibitions:No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure:1. Hold any other office or employment;2. Engage in the practice of any profession;3. Engage in the active management and control of any business which in any waymay be affected by the functions of his office; and4. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with, or in anyfranchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its subdivision, agenciesor instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.CHR Employees Association vs. CHR, G.R. No. 155336, November 24, 2004, theCommission on Human Rights, unlike the three Constitutional Commissions, does notenjoy fiscal autonomy.Civil Service Commission vs. DBM, G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005, the “no report,no release” policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscalautonomy, without violating Sec. 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution. The “automaticrelease” of approved annual appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commissionvested with fiscal autonomy should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fundreleases to it may be imposed. However, petitioner’s claim that its budget may not bereduced by Congress below the amount appropriated for the previous year, as in thecase of Judiciary, must be rejected. The provision in Section 3 of Article VIII, prohibitingthe reduction in the appropriation for the Judiciary below the amount appropriated forthe previous year does not appear in Section 5, Article IX-A. The plain implication of thisomission is that Congress is not prohibited from reducing the appropriations ofConstitutional Commissions below the amount appropriated for them for the previousyear.

Certiorari Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Limited to decisions rendered in actions or proceedings taken cognizance of by theCommissions in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions. It does notrefer to purely executive powers. Hence, questions arising from the award of a contractfor construction of voting booths can be brought before the trial court. (Ambil vs.COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398, October 5, 2000)CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONComposition:1 Chairman;2 CommissionersQualifications:1. Natural-born citizen;2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;3. With proven capacity for public administration; and4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately precedingthe appointment.Term: Seven (7) years without reappointmentScope of the Civil Service: Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities andagencies of the Government, including government-owned and controlled corporationswith original charters [Section 2(1), Article IX-B]Classes of Service: Career Service—characterized by:a. Entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined by competitiveexamination or based on highly technical qualification;b. Opportunity for advancement; andc. Security of tenure.Kinds of Career Service:O pen Career Positions—prior qualification via examination;C losed Career Positions—those highly technical position;C areer Executive Service—Undersecretaries, Bureau Directors;C areer Officers—those appointed by the President like those in theforeign service;C ommissioned Officers and enlisted men of the AFP—governed byseparate merit system;P ersonnel of GOCCs—whether performing governmental orproprietary functions, with original charters; andP ermanent laborers—whether skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled. Non-Career Service—characterized by:a. Entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests of merits and fitness

utilized for the career service; andb. Tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, which is co-terminuswith that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which islimited to the duration of a particular project for which purposeemployment was made.Kinds of Non-Career:Elective official and their personal or confidential staff;Department heads and other officials of Cabinet rank who holdpositions at the pleasure of the President and their personal orconfidential staff;Chairmen and members of commissions and boards with fixed termsof office and their personal or confidential staff;Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the governmentis in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work orjob; andEmergency and seasonal personnel.Exceptions to the requirement of Competitive Examinations:1. Policy-determining Position—one charged with laying down of principal orfundamental guidelines or rules;2. Primary Confidential Position—one denoting not only confidence in theaptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacywhich ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom frommisgiving or betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of state, or onedeclared to be so by the President upon recommendation of the Civil ServiceCommission.3. Highly Technical Position—requires the appointee to possess technical skill ortraining in the supreme or superior degree.CSC vs. Engr. Darangina, G.R. No. 167472, January 31, 2007, where a non-eligibleholds a temporary appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is notprohibited. When a temporary appointee is required to relinquish his office, he is beingseparated precisely because his term has expired.Tanjay Water District vs. Quinit, Jr. G.R. No. 160502, April 27, 2007, it is anestablished rule that the tenure of office of those holding primarily confidential positionsends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as longs as

confidence in them endures. Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss ofconfidence, in which case, their cessation from office involves no removal but theexpiration of their term of office.Power to approve/disapprove appointments—The authority of CSC to approve appointments—to check whether or not theappointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualification—does not include the authority to make the appointment itself or to direct theappointing authority to change the employment status of an employee. The CSC canonly inquire into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds theperson qualified, it must so attest. If not, the appointment must be disapproved.(Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, G.R. No. 104639, July 14, 1995)In the case of Lopez vs. CSC, 194 SCRA 269, the SC held that the CSC has no powerto revoke an appointment simply because it believes that the person protesting theappointment or somebody is better qualified, for that will constitute an encroachment ofthe discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONComposition:One (1) ChairmanSix (6) CommissionersQualifications:1. Natural-born citizen;2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;3. With proven capacity for public administration; and4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately precedingthe appointment.5. Majority, including the Chairman, must be members of the Philippine Bar whohave been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years.

Term: Seven (7) years without reappointmentSection 1, par. 2, Article IX-C—Chairman and Commissioners of COMELEC are notsubject to re-appointment(See the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo re: ad interim appointment)

The COMELEC’s exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3, Article IXCwhich expressly requires that:1. All elections cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall bedecided by the COMELEC in division, and2. The motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.The prosecution of election law violators involves the exercise of theCOMELEC’s administrative powers. Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly approvethe recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal information for doubleregistration against violators. There is no constitutional requirement that the filing of thecriminal information be first decided by any of the divisions of the COMELEC. (Baytanvs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003)In Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007, once thewinning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as aMember of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over electioncontests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s ownjurisdiction begins.In Quizon vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177927, February 17, 2008, the denial ofdue course or cancellation of one’s certificate of candidacy is not within theadministration powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasijudicialfunctions. Hence, the Court may compel COMELEC to exercise such discretionand resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion.Powers and Functions:1. Enforce and administer law and regulations relative to the conduct of elections,plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall;2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election, returns andqualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials;3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipalofficials decided by the RTC, or involving elective barangay officials by MTC;4. Decide, except those involving right to vote, all questions affecting elections,

including the determination of number and location of polling places, appointmentof election officials and inspectors and registration of voters;5. Deputize, with concurrence of President, law enforcement agencies andinstrumentalities for exclusive purpose of insuring free, orderly, honest, peacefuland credible elections.6. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations or coalitionswhich must present their platform or program government; accredit citizen’sarms;7. File upon verified complaint or motu proprio petitions in court for inclusions orexclusions of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases ofviolations of election laws;8. Recommend to Congress effective measures to minimize election spending,limitation of places and prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds,offenses, malpractice and nuisance candidates; and9. Submit to the President and Congress, comprehensive reports on conduct ofeach election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall.COMMISSION ON AUDITComposition:One (1) ChairmanTwo (2) CommissionersQualifications:1. Natural-born citizen;2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;3. CPA with at least ten (10) years auditing experience or members of thePhilippine Bar with at least ten (10) years practice of law; at no time shall allmembers belong to the same position; and4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately precedingthe appointment.Term: Seven (7) years without reappointmentPowers and Duties:1. Examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of, andexpenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust or pertaining togovernment;2. Keep general accounts of government and preserve vouchers and supportingpapers;

3. Authority to define scope of its audit and examination, establish techniques andmethods required therefore; and4. Promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those forpreservation and disallowance.Jurisdiction of the Commission: No law shall be passed exempting any entity of theGovernment, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA. (Sec.3, Article IX-C)Temporary or Acting capacity appointment by the President to the COMELEC, COA,CSC is prohibited by the Constitution.In Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358, the designation of Commissioner Yorac asActing Commissioner of the COMELEC was a violation of Section 1, paragraph 1 of Article IX-C.Fiscal Autonomy—The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy onlyto Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of Ombudsman. TheCommission on Human Rights has no fiscal autonomy. (CHR Employees’ Association vs.CHR, G.R. No. 155336, July 21, 2006)

Article XIACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERSSection 1, Article XIPublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times beaccountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is governed by law, andcannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by private persons.Security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and secondlevel employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the

position to which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No. 169604, March6, 2007)Who are impeachable officers?(The list is exclusive)1. President2. Vice-President3. Members of the Constitutional Commission4. Justices of the Supreme Court5. OmbudsmanJustices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by impeachment. Impeachment of President—the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside; theSenate/HOR will prosecuteGrounds for impeachment:1. Culpable violation of the constitution2. Treason3. Bribery4. Betrayal of public trust5. Graft and corruption6. Other high crimesProcedure in Impeachment—Initiation:The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all casesof impeachment.Process:1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House or any citizen uponresolution of endorsement by any member thereof;2. Included in the order of business within ten (10) session days;3. Referred to the proper committee within three (3) session days of its inclusion.If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members, the same shallconstitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwithproceed.4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shallsubmit its report to the House together with the corresponding resolution;5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten (10) days fromsubmission;6. Discussion on the floor of the report;7. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House shall be necessary eitherto affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the

Committee or override its contrary resolution.Trial and Decision—1. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;2. When the president is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shallpreside but shall not vote;3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the membersof the Senate.Effect of Conviction—1. Removal from office;2. Disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines;3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishmentaccording to law.Limitation:1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated against the same officialwithin a period of one (1) year.2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all casesof impeachment.Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, March 20, 2001, the Republic of thePhilippines cannot be held liable under an “Agreement” entered into by the PCGG withanother party where the republic did not authorize the PCGG to enter into such contract.Where the sale of an aircraft to a third party by the PCGG is void, it follows that the“Agreement” between the PCGG and the third party is likewise a nullity, and there canbe no cause of action against the Republic.Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto, et al.G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999, Article XI, Section 15 of the Constitution providesthat the “right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials oremployees, from them or from their nominees as transferees, shall not be barred byprescription, laches, or estoppel. This provision does not seem to indicate that what isimprescriptible is the corresponding civil action to recover “ill-gotten wealth” but not the

criminal action that may relate thereto. The criminal action, i.e., violation of Section 3(c)and (g), RA 3019, can prescribe conformably with the pertinent statute applicable which,in this instance, BP 195, providing for a 15-year prescriptive period and therebymodifying to the above extent the 10-year prescriptive period under RA 3019.In Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10,2003, an impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by theSenate while an impeachment proceeding is one that is initiated in the House ofRepresentatives. For purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the proceeding is“initiated” or begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee onJustice for action.Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative punishment of removal fromoffice because the power to remove local elective officials has been exclusively grantedto the proper courts. (Sanggguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos vs.Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)SANDIGANBAYANThe anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as nowand hereafter may be provided by law.Composition:One (1) Presiding JusticeFourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of the Court of Appeals Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members eachDecision and Review—Unanimous vote of all three (3) members shall be required for thepronouncement of judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by the SC onpetition for certiorari.Jurisdiction: O riginal JurisdictionB. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of theRPC where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the followingpositions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interimcapacity at the time of the commission of the offense:

5. Officials of the Executive branch with the position of Regional Director orhigher, or with SG Level 27 according to RA 6758, specifically including:i. Provincial governors, vice-governors, board members, provincialtreasures, assessors, engineers and other provincial departmentshead;ii. City mayors, vice-mayors, city councilors, city treasurers,assessors, engineers and other city department heads;iii. Officials of the diplomatic service from consuls or higher;iv. PA/PAF colonels, PN captains and all officers of higher rank;v. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of provincialdirector and those holding the rank of senior superintendent orhigher;vi. City/provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials andprosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and specialprosecutor;vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCC’s stateuniversities or educational institutions or foundations.6. Members of Congress and officials thereof with SG27 and up;7. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the Constitution;8. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions withoutprejudice to the Constitution; and9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher.C. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complex with other crimescommitted by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection (a)in relation to their office;D. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with ExecutiveOrder Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986. E xclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs ofmandamus, prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillarywrits and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided, thatjurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of the Supreme Court. E xclusive Appellate Jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders ofRTC whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or their appellatejurisdiction. (RA 8249)THE OMBUDSMANThe champion of the citizens and protector of the people.Tasked to entertain complaints addressed to him against erring public officersand take all necessary actions thereon.Composition:An Ombudsman known as the TanodbayanOne (1) Overall Deputy;At least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao;

One (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise beappointedQualifications:1. Natural-born citizen;2. At least 40 years of age;3. Of recognized probity and independence;4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediatelypreceding election.Term: Seven (7) years without reappointmentDisqualifications and Inhibitions—A. During their tenure:1. Shall not hold any other office or employment;2. Engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management andcontrol of any business which in any way may be affected by the functions ofhis office;3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with,or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of itssubdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or theirsubsidiaries.4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediatelysucceeding their cessation from office. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annualappropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. (Section 14, Article XI)Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993, the power toinvestigate also includes the power to impose preventive suspension. This is differentfrom the power to recommend suspension. The latter is suspension as a penalty;preventive suspension is not a penalty.Powers, Functions and Duties:1. The Constitution and RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) has endowed theOffice of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorpowers virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention. TheSupreme Court consistently refrains from interfering with the exercise of itspowers, and respects the initiative and independence inherent in theOmbudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people andthe preserver of the integrity of public service. (Loquias vs. Office of theOmbudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000)

2. The Ombudsman is clothed with authority to conduct preliminary investigationand prosecute all criminal cases involving public officers and employees, not onlythose within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but those within the jurisdictionof the regular courts as well. (Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105965-70,March 20, 2001)Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007, since theresponsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualificationstandards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limitedto assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards andapproving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of thedepartment or agency, specially in a case like this in which an independentconstitutional body is involved.Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006, the incumbentTanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who issupposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearlywithout authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminalcases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman.Suspension under the Ombudsman Act vis-à-vis the Local Government Code:o In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24of RA 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and: The charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty,oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; The charges should warrant removal from the service; or The respondent’s continued stay in the office would prejudice the casefiled against him.o The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all publicofficials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation.o On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive

suspension prescribed under the LGC of 1991 on an elective local official (at anytime after the issues are joined), it would be enough that:d. There is a reasonable ground to believe that the respondent hascommitted the act or acts complained of;e. The evidence of culpability is strong;f. The gravity of the offense so warrants; org. The continuance in the office of the respondent could influence thewitnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records andother evidence. (Miranda vs. Sandioganbayan, G.R. No. 154098, July27, 2005)Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007, the SC upheldthe constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that thepowers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Courtruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsmanhas the constitutional power to directly remove from the government service an erringpublic official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.