1.

The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or appropriation, revenue of tariff bill but the veto shall not affect the item or
items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall items to which he does not object.
not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
2) General provisions made in an appropriations bill shall ultimately refer
to a specific appropriation for it to take effect; Section 55 did not refer to
55. CIR V CTA
any appropriations involved in the entire bill. Similarly, the contents of this
56. GONZALES V. MACARAEG
section is concerned on Appropriation Disapproved and/or reduced by
Congress that is not included on the face of the bill. Court ruled the
Facts:
constitutionality of the presidential veto and the petition was DISMISSED
December 16, 1988, Congress passed House Bill No. 19186 aka General
57.
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1989. December 29,1988, President
58.
signed the Bill into law and had become Rep. Act No 6688. In the process,
a. TAX LAWS(section 28)
seven special provisions and Section 55 on General Provision were
59. COMMISIONER OF BIR V CA
vetoed.
FACTS:
Senate issued Resolution No. 381 expressing the veto by the president was
In 1980, YMCA earned an income of 676,829.80 from leasing out a portion of its
unconstitutional.
premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators and 44,259
"SEC. 55. Prohibition Against the Restoration or Increase of Recommended
from parking fees collected from non-members. On July 2, 1984, the CIR issued an
Appropriations Disapproved and/or Reduced by Congress: No item of
assessment to YMCA for deficiency taxes which included the income from lease of
appropriation recommended by the President in the Budget submitted to
YMCAs real property. YMCA formally protested the assessment but the CIR denied
Congress pursuant to Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution which has
the claims of YMCA. On appeal, the CTA ruled in favor of YMCA and excluded
been disapproved or reduced in this Act shall be restored or increased by
income from lease to small shop owners and parking fees. However, the CA
the use of appropriations authorized for other purposes by augmentation.
reversed the CTA but affirmed the CTA upon motion for reconsideration.
An item of appropriation for any purpose recommended by the President
in the Budget shall be deemed to have been disapproved by Congress if no
ISSUE:
corresponding appropriation for the specific purpose is provided in this
Whether the rental income of YMCA is taxable
Act."
RULING:
Issue: Whether or not veto made by the president is constitutional
Yes. The exemption claimed by YMCA is expressly disallowed by the very wording of
then Section 27 of the NIRC which mandates that the income of exempt
Held: Yes.1) Article 6 Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution has 2 parts, 1)
organizations (such as the YMCA) from any of their properties, real or personal, be
President generally can veto the entire bill as exercise of her power and 2)
subject to the tax imposed by the same Code. While the income received by the
president shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
organizations enumerated in Section 26 of the NIRC is, as a rule, exempted from the
payment of tax in respect to income received by them as such, the exemption does
not apply to income derived from any of their properties, real or personal or from No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution Congress
any of their activities conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of is mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education, it does not
such income. thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the
60. power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the
b. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS(Section 29) attainment of other state policies or objectives.
61. GUIGONA JR V CARAGUE
FACTS: Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment, to
provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service our enormous debtIt is not
The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86.8 only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. More
Billion for debt service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under RA 6831, otherwise especially, the very survival of our economy is at stake. Thus, if in the process
known as the General Approriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion, while the Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated
appropriations for the DECS amount to P27,017,813,000.00. to education, the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be
thereby assailed as unconstitutional
The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. 18, 62. PASCUAL V SECY. PUBLIC WORKS
entitled Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand "A law appropriating the public revenue is invalid if the public advantage or
Eight Hundred Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), by PD No. 1177, benefit, derived from such expenditure, is merely incidental in the promotion of a
entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary particular enterprise."
Innovations of the New Society, and by PD No.1967, entitled An Act
Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the FACTS: Governor Wenceslao Pascual of Rizal instituted this action for declaratory
Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans relief, with injunction, upon the ground that RA No. 920, which apropriates funds
by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose. for public works particularly for the construction and improvement of Pasig
feeder road terminals. Some of the feeder roads, however, as alleged and as
The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic contained in the tracings attached to the petition, were nothing but projected
appropriation for debt service, it being higher than the budget for education, and planned subdivision roads, not yet constructed within the Antonio
therefore it is against Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates Subdivision, belonging to private respondent Zulueta, situated at Pasig, Rizal; and
to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. which projected feeder roads do not connect any government property or any
important premises to the main highway. The respondents' contention is that
ISSUE: there is public purpose because people living in the subdivision will directly be
Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional; it benefitted from the construction of the roads, and the government also gains
being higher than the budget for education. from the donation of the land supposed to be occupied by the streets, made by
its owner to the government.
HELD:
ISSUE: Should incidental gains by the public be considered "public purpose" for
the purpose of justifying an expenditure of the government?
HELD: No. It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate
public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of
the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying
a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to
which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may
be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the
state, which results from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of
private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public money.
The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is
whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest, as opposed to the
furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although each advantage to
individuals might incidentally serve the public.
63.
64.
6) INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Article vi, section 32
a. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM (section 32)
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the
people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or
law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after
the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
thereof.
65.GARCIA V COMELEC
FACTS:
On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of
Morong to annul Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 which includes the
Municipaloty of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone in accord with
the RA No. 7227.
The municipality did not take any action on the petition within 30 days after its
submission; so, they resorted to their power of initiative under the Local
Government Code of 1991. They solicited the required number of signatures to
repeal the said resolution.
However, the Vice Mayor, Hon. Edilberto de Leon, and the Presiding Office of the
Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong wrote a letter dated June 11, 1993 to deny the
petition for local initiative and/or referendum.
On July 6, 1993, the Comelec denied the petition for local initiative because its
subject is merely a resolution and not an ordinance.
ISSUE:
w/n the Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 is the proper subject of an
initiative?
Sub-issue: w/n the decision of the Comelec to deny the petition be set aside?
HELD:
The petition is granted and the decision of the Comelec on July 6, 1993 is annulled
and set aside.
RULING:
The 1987 Constitution installed back the power to the people regarding legislation
because of the event in February 1986. The new Constitution became less trusting
of public officials.
Through initiative, the people were given the power to amend the Constitution
under Sec. 2 Art. 17 which provides amendments to this Constitution may likewise
be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12% and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and
represented by at least 3% of the registered voter therein. underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-
defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the
The Comelec was also empowered to enforce and administer all laws and formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the
regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and referendum. nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.
Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, free and
On Aug. 4, 1989, the Congress approved RA No. 6735 entitled An Act Providing for open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation
a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor. of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by
enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature,
YES. Sec. 32 of Art. 6 provides the Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and shall provide the simplest scheme possible.
and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose Section 3. Definition of Terms. -
and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
a. The party-list system is a mechanism of proportional
Congress or local legislative body.
representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
Under Sec. 32(a) of RA No. 6735 it provided the 3 systems of initiative, namely:
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the
1. Initiative on the Constitution petition to amend the Constitution
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or
2. Initiative on statutes petition proposing to enact a national legislation
organizations of a coalition may participate independently
3. Initiative on local legislation petition proposing to enact a regional,
provided the coalition of which they form part does not
provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance
participate in the party-list system.

Under its Sec.16(a), it provided the limitations on local initiatives, which is the
power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.
LAWS:
- R.A NO 7941: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION PARTYLIST b. A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTYLIST SYSTEM. MARCH 3, coalition of parties.
1995

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Party-List System Act".

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall promote proportional c. A political party refers to an organized group of citizens
representation in the election of representatives to the House of advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the
Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional general conduct of government and which, as the most
 immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates
and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for
public office.
d. It is a national party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. It is a
regional party when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
e. A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging
to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose
principal advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns
of their sector.
f. A sectoral organization refers to a group of citizens or a coalition
of groups of citizens who share similar physical attributes or
characteristics, employment, interest or concerns.
g. A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national,
regional, sectoral parties or organizations for political and/or
election purposes.
Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-List System. - Any
party, organization, or coalition already registered with the Commission
need not register anew. However, such party, organization or coalition
shall file with the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the
election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the party-list system.
Section 5. Registration. - Any organized group of persons may register as a
party, organization or coalition for purposes of the party-list system by
filing with the COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the election
a petition verified by its president or secretary stating its desire to
participate in the party-list system as a national, regional or sectoral party
or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching
thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of government, list
of officers, coalition agreement and other relevant information as the
COMELEC may require: provided, that the sectors shall include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and
professionals.
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.
The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve the petition
within fifteen (15) days from the date it was submitted for decision but in
no case not later than sixty (60) days before election.
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC
may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party,
remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the
following grounds:
1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association
organized for religious purposes;

2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign
political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or
through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating
to elections;
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
8. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails
to obtain at least two percentum (2%) of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the
constituency in which it has registered.
Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. - The COMELEC shall, not
later than sixty (60) days before election, prepare a certified list of
national, regional, or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which
have applied or who have manifested their desire to participate under the
party-list system and distribute copies thereof to all precincts for posting in
the polling places on election day. The names of the party-list nominees
shall not be shown on the certified list.
Section 8. Nominations of Party-List Representatives. - Each registered
party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than
forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5)
from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the
required number of votes.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have
given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not
include any candidate for any elective office or person who has lost his bid
for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of
names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the
same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where
the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing, his nomination, becomes
incapacitated in which case the name of the substitutes nominee shall be
placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be
considered resigned.
Section 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be
nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of
the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period
of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days
preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of
age on the day of the election. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he
must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age
on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty during his term shall be allowed to continue until the
expiration of his term.
Section 10. Manner of Voting. - Every voter shall be entitled to two (2)
votes. The first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of
Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the
party, organization, or coalition he wants represented in the House of
Representatives: provided, that a vote cast for a party, sectoral
organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted:
provided, finally that the first election under the party-list system shall be
held in May 1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information
campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the
party-list system.
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. - The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty percentum (20%) of the total
number of the members of the House of Representatives including those
under the party-list. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five
(5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House
of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines
shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. In determining
the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall
be observed: The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked
from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered
during the elections. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at
least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall
be entitled to one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than two
percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion
to their total number of votes: provided, finally, that each party,
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives. -
The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or
coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of
votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately
according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization,
or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
system.
Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. - Party-list
representatives shall be proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of
names submitted by the respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to
the COMELEC according to their ranking in the said list.
Section 14. Term of Office. - Party-list representatives shall be elected for
a term of three (3) years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No
party-list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected.
Section 15. Change of Affiliation Effect. - Any elected party-list
representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during
his term of office shall forfeit his seat: provided, that if he changes his
political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an
election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative
under his new party or organization.
Section 16. Vacancy. - In case of vacancy in seats reserved for party-list
representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next
representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the - R.A NO. 6735: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE
COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for AND REFERENDUM. AUGUST 4, 1989.
the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization, or
coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives. - Party-list
representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as I.General Provisions
regular members of the House of Representatives.
SECTION 1. Title.This Act shall be known as The Initiative and
Section 18. Rules and Regulations. - The COMELEC shall promulgate the
Referendum Act.
necessary rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose of this Act.
SEC. 2. Statement of Policy.The power of the people under a
Section 19. Appropriations. - The amount necessary for the system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws,
implementation of this Act shall be provided in the regular appropriations
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon
for the Commission on Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the
compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
General Appropriations Act. Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby
recognized and guaranteed.
authorized to utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its
information campaign on the party-list system.
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.For purposes of this Act, the following
Section 20. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is held invalid or terms shall mean:
unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions thereof shall remain valid
and effective.
(a) Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an
Section 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules election called for the purpose.
and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed. There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

Section 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. proposing amendments to the Constitution;

Approved: March 3, 1995 a.2 Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a national legislation; and
a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing
to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance.
(b) Indirect initiative is exercise of initiative by the people through
a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative body for
action.
(c) Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject
a legislation through an election called for the purpose. It may be of
two classes, namely:
c.1 Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or
reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and
c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or
reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies
and local legislative bodies.
(d) Proposition is the measure proposed by the voters.
(e) Plebiscite is the electoral process by which an initiative on the
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.
(f) Petition is the written instrument containing the proposition
and the required number of signatories. It shall be in a form to be
determined by and submitted to the Commission on Elections,
hereinafter referred to as the Commission.
(g) Local government units refers to provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays.
(h) Local legislative bodies refers to the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panglungsod, Sangguniang Bayan,
and Sangguniang Nayon.
(i) Local executives refers to the Provincial Governors, City or
Municipal Mayors and Punong Barangay, as the case may be.
SEC. 4. Who May Exercise.The power of initiative and referendum
may be exercised by all registered voters of the country,
autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and
barangays.
SEC. 5. Requirements.(a) To exercise the power of initiative or
referendum, at least ten per centum (10%) of the total number of
the registered voters, of which every legislative district is
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the
same with the Commission.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at
least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered
voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only
after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and
only once every five (5) years thereafter.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1 contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
c.2 the proposition;
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor;
c.4 that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one
hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the
top of every page of the petition.
(d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law, resolution or
ordinance passed by the legislative assembly of an autonomous
region, province or city is deemed validly initiated if the petition
therefor is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered
voters in the province or city, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein: Provided, however, That if the province or city is
composed only of one (1) legislative district, then at least each
municipality in a province or each barangay in a city should be
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein.
(e) A referendum or initiative on an ordinance passed in a
municipality shall be deemed validly initiated if the petition therefor
is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in
the municipality, of which every barangay is represented by at least
three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
(f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay resolution or ordinance
is deemed validly initiated if signed by at least ten per centum (10%)
of the registered voters in said barangay.
SEC. 6. Special Registration.The Commission on Elections shall set
a special registration day at least three (3) weeks before a
scheduled initiative or referendum.
SEC. 7. Verification of Signatures.The Election Registrar shall verify
the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters
affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately
preceding election.
II.National Initiative and Referendum
SEC. 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or Referendum.The
Commission shall call and supervise the conduct of initiative or
referendum.
Within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the
Commission shall, upon determining the sufficiency of the petition,
publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers
of general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative or
referendum which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days but
not later than ninety (90) days from the determination by the
Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.
SEC. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or Referendum Proposition.(a) The
proposition for the enactment, approval, amendment or rejection
of a national law shall be submitted to and approved by a majority
of the votes cast by all the registered voters of the Philippines.
If, as certified to by the Commission, the proposition is approved by
a majority of the votes cast, the national law proposed for
enactment, approval, or amendment shall become effective fifteen
(15) days following completion of its publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
If, as certified by the Commission, the proposition to reject a
national law is approved by a majority of the votes cast, the said
national law shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become
effective fifteen (15) days following the completion of publication of
the proposition and the certification by the Commission in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
However, if the majority vote is not obtained, the national law
sought to be rejected or amended shall remain in full force and
effect.
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by
a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective
as to the day of the plebiscite.
(c) A national or local initiative proposition approved by majority of
the votes cast in an election called for the purpose shall become
effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation by
the Commission.
SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures.The following cannot be the subject
of an initiative or referendum petition:
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be
submitted to the electorate; and
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which
are specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be
subject to referendum until ninety (90) days after its effectivity.
SEC. 11. Indirect Initiative.Any duly accredited peoples
organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect
initiative with the House of Representatives, and other legislative
bodies. The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes
and contents of the bill that the organization proposes to be
enacted into law by the legislature.
The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same
as the enactment of any legislative measure before the House of
Representatives except that the said initiative bill shall have
precedence over other pending legislative measures on the
committee.
SEC. 12. Appeal.The decision of the Commission on the findings of
the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
referendum may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty
(30) days from notice thereof.
III.Local Initiative and Referendum
SEC. 13. Procedure in Local Initiative.(a) Not less than two
thousand (2,000) registered voters in case of autonomous regions,
one thousand (1,000) in case of provinces and cities, one hundred
(100) in case of municipalities, and fifty (50) in case of barangays,
may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local legislative
body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or
amendment, of any law, ordinance or resolution.
(b) If no favorable action thereon is made by local legislative body
within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the proponents
through their duly authorized and registered representative may
invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local
legislative body concerned.
(c) The proposition shall be numbered serially starting from one (1).
The Secretary of Local Government or his designated representative
shall extend assistance in the formulation of the proposition.
(d) Two or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative.
(e) Proponents shall have one hundred twenty (120) days in case of
autonomous regions, ninety (90) days in case of provinces and
cities, sixty (60) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in
case of barangays, from notice mentioned in subsection (b) hereof
to collect the required number of signatures.
(f) The petition shall be signed before the Election Registrar, or his
designated representatives, in the presence of a representative of
the proponent, and a representative of the regional assemblies and
local legislative bodies concerned in a public place in the
autonomous region or local government unit, as the case may be.
Signature stations may be established in as many places as may be
warranted.
(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein provided, the Commission
on Elections, through its office in the local government unit
concerned shall certify as to whether or not the required number of
signatures has been obtained. Failure to obtain the required
number is a defeat of the proposition.
(h) If the required number of signatures is obtained, the
Commission shall then set a date for the initiative at which the
proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local
government unit concerned for their approval within ninety (90)
days from the date of certification by the Commission, as provided
in subsection (g) hereof, in case of autonomous regions, sixty (60)
days in case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of
municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays. The
initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the results
thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the Commission on
Elections.
SEC. 14. Effectivity of Local Propositions.If the proposition is
approved by a majority of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after certification by the Commission as if affirmative
action thereon had been made by the local legislative body and
local executive concerned. If it fails to obtain said number of votes,
the proposition is considered defeated.
SEC. 15. Limitations on Local Initiatives.(a) The power of local
initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are
within the legal powers of the local legislative bodies to enact.
(c) If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative
body shall adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative
shall be cancelled. However, those against such action may, if they
so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided.
SEC. 16. Limitations Upon Local Legislative Bodies.Any proposition
or ordinance or resolution approved through the system of initiative
and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified
or amended, by the local legislative body concerned within six (6)
months from the date therefrom, and may be amended, modified
or repealed by the local legislative body within three (3) years
thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its
members: Provided, however, That in case of barangays, the period
shall be one (1) year after the expiration of the first six (6) months.
SEC. 17. Local Referendum.Notwithstanding the provision of
Section 4 hereof, any local legislative body may submit to the
registered voters of autonomous region, provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays for the approval or rejection, any
ordinance or resolution duly enacted or approved.
Said referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the SEC. 23. Effectivity.This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
Commission within sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities, its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and thirty (30) days in
case of barangays. Approved, August 4, 1989.

The Commission shall certify and proclaim the results of the said
referendum.

SEC. 18. Authority of Courts.Nothing in this Act shall prevent or

preclude the proper courts from declaring null and void any
proposition approved pursuant to this Act for violation of the
Constitution or want of capacity of the local legislative body to
enact the said measure.

IV.Final Provisions

SEC. 19. Applicability of the Omnibus Election Code.The Omnibus

Election Code and other election laws, not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, shall apply to all initiatives and referenda.

SEC. 20. Rules and Regulations.The Commission is hereby

empowered to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. VII. WHO IMPLEMENTS THE LAW AND RUNS THE GOVERNMENT.
(EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT)
SEC. 21. Appropriations.The amount necessary to defray the cost
of the initial implementation of this Act shall be charged against the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Contingent Fund in the General Appropriations Act of the current
1. 1. PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
year. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the full
ARTICLE VII, SECTIONS 2-13
implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act. Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to
SEC. 22. Separability Clause.If any part or provision of this Act is read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or provisions election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
thereof shall remain valid and effective. immediately preceding such election.
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in
the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected
by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day
of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years
thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.
No person who has succeeded as President and has served as
such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
service for the full term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday
of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city,
shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of
the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the
Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session,
and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the
votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal
and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be
chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the
certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.
Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the
President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take
the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or
Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its
Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and
consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God."
(In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)
Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The
salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined
by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase
in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the term of the incumbent during which such increase was
approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other
emolument from the Government or any other source.
Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall
assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall
act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect
shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and
qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-
elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled,
the Vice President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or
shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become
permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of
his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act
as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been
chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one
who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a
Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent
disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next
preceding paragraph.
Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from
office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall
become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of
death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of
both the President and Vice-President, the President of the
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or
Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in
case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting
President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President
shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same
restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President.
Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-
President during the term for which he was elected, the President
shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office
upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of
the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and
Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling
for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to
be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days
from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election
shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article
V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on
third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special
election shall be charged against any current appropriations and
shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section
25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress
cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No
special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within
eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.
Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit
to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of
all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress
shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in
accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written
declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President
shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue
exercising the powers and duties of his office.
Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public
shall be informed of the state of his health. The members of the
Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not
be denied access to the President during such illness.
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be
appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
1. 2. POWERS AND FUCTION OF THE PRESIDENT
ARTICLE VII, SECTIONS 1, 13-23
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of
the Philippines.
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be
appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall
remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within
ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting
President shall not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the
appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President
alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during
the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but
such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of
the Congress.
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws
be faithfully executed.
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days,
otherwise he shall be released.
Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after
conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans
on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior
concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall,
within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar
year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on
applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the
Government or government-owned and controlled corporations
which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and
containing other matters as may be provided by law.
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within
thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis
of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures.
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the
opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any
other time.
ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 4 & 16
Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to
component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities
with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts
of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed
powers and functions.
Section 16. The President shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 9, 23, 27, 28
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term.
Section 23.
1. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint
session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to
declare the existence of a state of war.
2. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may,
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof.
Section 27.
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law,
be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall
sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his
objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the
objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If,
after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such
House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of
each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names
of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to
the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of
 receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
signed it.
2. The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or
items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
Section 28.
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and personages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 13
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 23 (2)
Section 23.
2. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may,
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof.
ARTICLE XII, SECTIONS 21
Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance with
law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on
foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be
made available to the public.
CASE LIST
1. 1. PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
ARTICLE VII, SECTIONS 2-13
A. ELECTION AND CANVAS (SECTION 4)
1. MACALINTAL V COMELEC
Political Law Election Laws Absentee Voters Act Proclamation of
Winners in a National Elections
Romulo Macalintal, as a lawyer and a taxpayer, questions the validity of
the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). He questions the
validity of the said act on the following grounds, among others:
1. That the provision that a Filipino already considered an immigrant
abroad can be allowed to participate in absentee voting provided
he executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the
Philippines is void because it dispenses of the requirement that a
voter must be a resident of the Philippines for at least one year
and in the place where he intends to vote for at least 6 months
immediately preceding the election;
2. That the provision allowing the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to proclaim winning candidates insofar as it affects
 the canvass of votes and proclamation of winning candidates for
president and vice-president, is unconstitutional because it
violates the Constitution for it is Congress which is empowered to
do so.
ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintals arguments are correct.
HELD: No.
1. There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are
required to physically reside in the Philippines within the period
required for non-absentee voters. Further, as understood in
election laws, domicile and resident are interchangeably used.
Hence, one is a resident of his domicile (insofar as election laws is
concerned). The domicile is the place where one has the intention
to return to. Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating
his intent to return to the Philippines is considered a resident of
the Philippines for purposes of being qualified as a voter
(absentee voter to be exact). If the immigrant does not execute
the affidavit then he is not qualified as an absentee voter.
2. The said provision should be harmonized. It could not be the
intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the
proclamation of the winners in the vice-presidential and
presidential race. To interpret it that way would mean that
Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power. The canvassing
and proclamation of the presidential and vice presidential
elections is still lodged in Congress and was in no way transferred
to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189.
2. CONG. LOPEZ V SENATE AND HOUSE
where the Supreme Court, voting 14-0,
ruled: Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution expressly empowers
Congress to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.In
Arroyo v. de Venecia (277 SCRA 268, August 14,1997), the Court ruled that
it had no power to review the internal proceedings of Congress, unless
there is a clear violation of the Constitution. Likewise, Santiago v.
Guingona, (298 SCRA 756,November 18, 1998) held that the Court under
the doctrine of separation of powers has no authority to interfere in
the exclusive realm of a co-equal branch, absent a showing of grave
abuse of discretion. The Court has no authority to restrict or limit the
exercise of congressional prerogatives granted by the Constitution. The
Creation of the Joint Committee does not constitute grave abuse and
cannot be said to have deprived petitioner and The other members of
Congress of their congressional prerogatives, because under the very Rules
under attack, the decisions and final report of the said Committee shall be
subject to the approval of the joint session of both Houses of Congress,
voting separately.
3. PIMENTEL V JOINT CANVASSING COMMITTEE
Facts:
Petition for Prohibition. Pimentel, Jr. seeks a judgment declaring null and
void the continued existence of the Joint Committee. The petition
corollarily prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Joint
Committee to cease and desist from conducting any further proceedings
pursuant to the Rules of the Joint Public Session of Congress
on Canvassing. Petitioner posits that with "the adjournment sine
die(w/o date fixed) on June 11, 2004 by the Twelfth Congress of its last
regular session, [its] term ... terminated and expired on the said day and the
said Twelfth Congress serving the term 2001 to 2004 passed out of legal
existence." Henceforth, petitioner goes on, "all pending matters and
proceedings terminate upon the expirationof ... Congress.
ISSUE:
WON the Joint Committee performing election canvass even after the
termination of congress session is constitutional.
RULING:
Sec. 15. Art VI - The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth
Monday of July for its regular session,unless a different date is fixed by
law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirtydays before the opening of its next regular session,
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call
aspecial session at any time.
Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, the term of the present Twelfth
Congress did not terminate and expire upon theadjournment sine die of the
regular session of both Houses on June 11, 2004.
Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution cited by petitioner does not
pertain to the term of Congress, but to its regular annual legislative sessions
and the mandatory 30-day recess before the opening of its next regular
session (subject to the power of the President to call a special session at any
time).
Section 4 of Article VIII provides that "[t]he Term of office of the Senators
shall be six years and shall commence, unlessotherwise provided by law, at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election." Similarly,
Section 7 provides that"[t]he Members of the House of Representatives
shall be elected for a Term of three years. Consequently, there being no law
tothe contrary, until June 30, 2004, the present Twelfth Congress to which
the present legislators belong cannot be said to have"passed out of legal
existence.
"The Legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may have come to a close
upon the final adjournment of its regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this
does not affect its non-legislative functions. In fact, the joint public
session of both Housesof Congress convened by express directive of Section 4,
Article VII
to canvass the votes for and to proclaim the newly electedPresident
and VP has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its
constitutionally mandated tasks. For onlywhen a board of canvassers has
completed its functions is it rendered functus officio . Its membership may
change, but it retainsits authority as a board until it has accomplished its
purposes.
Since the Twelfth Congress has not yet completed its non-legislative duty to
canvass the votes and proclaim the dulyelected President and VP, its
existence as the National Board of Canvassers, as well as that of the Joint
Committee to which itreferred the preliminary tasks of authenticating and
canvassing the certificates of canvass, has not become functus officio
B. VACANCY SITUATIONS DURING THE TERM (SEC 8)
4. ESTRADA V DESIERTO
FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings
involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of
corruption were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee. On November 13, 2000, Estrada was
impeached by the Hor and, on December 7, impeachment
proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more serious
allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada were made
and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators,
sympathetic to the President, succeeded in suppressing damaging
evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was
thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out
and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his vote
against Estrada.
On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for
Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a
snap presidential election to be held concurrently with
congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added that
he will not run in this election. On January 20, SC declared that
the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada
constructively resigned his post. At noon, Arroyo took her oath
of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th
President. Estrada and his family later left Malacaang Palace.
Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for
WPI. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from
conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him not
until his term as president ends. He also prayed for judgment
 confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of Topic: Prohibitions [Article VII: Sections 13]
the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge
the duties of his office. Ponente: GRIO-AQUINO,
ISSUE:
MATERIAL FACTS:
Whether petitioner Estrada is a President on leave while
respondent Arroyo is an Acting President.
Quintin S. Doromal, a public officer and being a Commissioner of the
Presidential Commissionon Good Government, participated in a business
RULING:
through the Doromal International TradingCorporation (DITC), a family
The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly stating
corporation of which he is the President, and which company participated
its support to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the
in the biddings conducted by the Department of Education, Culture and
Republic of the Philippines and subsequently passed H.R. 178
Sports(DECS) and the National Manpower & Youth Council (NMYC) .
confirms the nomination of Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. As Vice
President. Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the Impeachment
In connection with his shareholdings and position as president and
Courts as Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is
that both houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as the President. director of the Doromal International Trading Corporation which
Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability submitted bids to supply P61 million worth ofelectronic, electrical,
of Estrada is no longer temporary as the Congress has clearly automotive, mechanical and airconditioning equipment to theN THE
rejected his claim of inability. Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the National Manpower
The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is and Youth Council.
political in nature and addressed solely to Congress by
An information then filed by the Tanodbayan against Doromal for the
constitutional fiat. In fine, even if Estrada can prove that he did
not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim that he is a President said violation and a preliminary investigation was conducted.
on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern
temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal
questioning the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan to file the information
branch of government cannot be reviewed by this Court.
without the approval of the Ombudsman.

ISSUES: Whether or not the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of

C. TEMPORARY DISABILITY (SEC 8) the Constitution.
5. ESTRADA V DESIERTO
(SAME) RULE:Article VII, Section 13 (1) of the Constitution provides:
D. PROHIBITIONS (SEC 13)
6. DOROMAL V SANDIGANBAYAN
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.
APPLICATION:
-The presence of a signed document bearing the signature of Doromal as
part of theapplication to bid shows that he can rightfully be charged with
having participated in abusiness which act is absolutely prohibited by
Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution"because "the DITC remained a
family corporation in which Doromal has at least an indirectinterest. That
admission allegedly belies the averment in the information that the
petitioner"participated' in the business of the DITC in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by lawfrom having any interest. (Sec. 3-h,
RA No. 3019).
The Sandiganbayan in its order of August 19, 1988 correctly observed
that "the presence of asigned document bearing the signature of accused
Doromal as part of the application to bid ...is not a sine qua non" (Annex O,
p. 179. Rollo), for, the Ombudsman indicated in
hisMemorandum/Clearance to the Special Prosecutor, that the petitioner
"can rightfully becharged ...with having participated in a business which act
is absolutely prohibited by Section13 of Article VII of the Constitution"
because "the DITC remained a family corporation in whichDoromal has at
least an indirect interest." (pp. 107-108, Rollo).
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the
President, Vice-President,the members of the Cabinet and their deputies
or assistants shall not... during (their) tenure,...directly or indirectly ...
participate in any business." The constitutional ban is similar to
theprohibition in the Civil Service Law (PD No. 807, Sec. 36, subpar. 24)
that "Pursuit of privatebusiness ... without the permission required by Civil
Service Rules and Regulations" shall be aground for disciplinary action
against any officer or employee in the civil service.
CONCLUSION:Yes, the act of Doromal would constitute a violation of the
Constitution specifically of Section 13 of Article VII.
7. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being resolved jointly as both seek for
the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 (EO
No. 284) issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino on July 25, 1987.
EO No. 284 allows members of the Cabinet, their Undersecretaries and
Assistant Secretaries to hold other than their government positions in
addition to their primary positions.
Section 1: A Cabinet member, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary or
other appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to
his primary position, hold not more than two (2) positions in the
government and government corporations and receive corresponding
compensation thereof.
Section 2: If they hold more than the requisites of Section 1, they must
relinquish the excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is
next in rank but in no case shall any officer hold not more than two (2)
positions other than his primary position.
Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of the boards of such corporation
should either be a Secretary, Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary.
Petitioners are challenging EO No. 284's unconstitutionality as its
provisions are in direct contrast with Section 13, Article VII of the
Constitution. According to the petitioners, the only exceptions against
holding any other office or employment in government are those provided
in the Constitution namely: 1) the Vice President may be appointed as a
Cabinet member under Section 3(2) of Article VII; 2) The Secretary of
Justice is and ex-officio of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section
8, Article VIII.
Constitutional provisions:
Section 13, Article VII: The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet and their Deputies or Assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided by the Constitution, hold any other office or employment during
their tenure. They shall not, directly or indirectly, during their tenure,
practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of
their office.
Section 8, Article VIII: Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office
or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is constitutional.
HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.
It has been held that in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the
object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any,
sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be
examined in the light of the history of the times and the condition and
circumstances under which the Constitution was framed.
The legislative intent of both Constitutional provisions is to prevent
government officials from holding multiple positions in the government for
self enrichment which is a betrayal of public trust.
The provisions of EO No. 284 above-mentioned are in direct contradiction
to the express mandate provided by the Constitutional provisions (Sec 13,
Art VII and Sec 8, Art VIII). The Constitution, the fundamental law of the
land, shall reign supreme over any other statute. When there is conflict, it
shall be resolved in favor of the highest law of the land. Thus, the Court
held that EO No. 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result, DENR Secretary
Fulgenio Factoran, Jr., DILF Secretary Luis Santos, DOH Secretary Alfredo
Bengzon and DBM Secretary Guillermo Carague are ordered to
immediately relinquish their offices and employment.
WHEREFORE, subject to the qualifications stated, the petitions are
GRANTED. Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void and is
accordingly set aside.
8. BITONIO JR. V COA
9. ESTRADA V DESIERTO
10. SOLIVEN V. MAKASIAR
1. 2. POWERS AND FUCTION OF THE PRESIDENT
A. EXECUTIVE POWER (SEC 1)
11. MARCOS V MANGLAPUS
FACTS: Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year
exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines. The call is about
to request of Marcos family to order the respondents to issue travel order
to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's decision to bar their
return to the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines.
RULING: Yes. According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution:
"The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines."
The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by executive power
although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers by the
President such as appointing power during recess of the Congress (S.16),
control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices (Section 17),
power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment (Section 19), treaty making
power (Section 21), borrowing power (Section 20), budgetary power
(Section 22), informing power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be said
to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor
judicial has to be executive.
12. SEMA V COMELEC
The Province of Maguindanao is part of ARMM. Cotabato City is part of the
province of Maguindanao but it is not part of ARMM because Cotabato City voted
against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in 1989. Maguindanao has two legislative
districts. The 1st legislative district comprises of Cotabato City and 8 other
municipalities.
A law (RA 9054) was passed amending ARMMs Organic Act and vesting it with
power to create provinces, municipalities, cities and barangays. Pursuant to this
law, the ARMM Regional Assembly created Shariff Kabunsuan (Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act 201) which comprised of the municipalities of the 1st district of
Maguindanao with the exception of Cotabato City.
For the purposes of the 2007 elections, COMELEC initially stated that the 1st
district is now only made of Cotabato City (because of MMA 201). But it later
amended this stating that status quo should be retained; however, just for the
purposes of the elections, the first district should be called Shariff Kabunsuan
with Cotabato City this is also while awaiting a decisive declaration from
Congress as to Cotabatos status as a legislative district (or part of any).
Bai Sandra Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S.
Kabunsuan with Cotabato (1st district). Later, Sema was contending that
Cotabato City should be a separate legislative district and that votes therefrom
should be excluded in the voting (probably because her rival Dilangalen was from
there and D was winning in fact he won). She contended that under the
Constitution, upon creation of a province (S. Kabunsuan), that province
automatically gains legislative representation and since S. Kabunsuan excludes
Cotabato City so in effect Cotabato is being deprived of a representative in the
HOR.
COMELEC maintained that the legislative district is still there and that regardless
of S. Kabunsuan being created, the legislative district is not affected and so is its
representation.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9054 is unconstitutional. Whether or not ARMM can
create validly LGUs.
HELD: RA 9054 is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is
governed by Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created, divided, B. PROHIBITED APPOINTMENTS (SEC16)
merged, abolished or its boundary substantially altered except in accordance with 14. GOV. V SPRINGER
the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected. Sometime in the 1900s, the National Coal Company (NCC) was created by
the Philippine Congress. The law created it (Act No. 2822) provides that:
Thus, the creation of any of the four local government units province, city, The voting power shall be vested exclusively in a committee consisting
municipality or barangay must comply with three conditions. First, the creation of of the Governor-General, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of
a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the Local Government the House of Representatives.
Code. Second, such creation must not conflict with any provision of the
In November 1926, the Governor-General (Leonard Wood) issued E.O. No.
Constitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected.
37 which divested the voting rights of the Senate President and House
Speaker in the NCC. The EO emphasized that the voting right should be
There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authority in the
solely lodged in the Governor-General who is the head of the government
Constitution for Congress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the
(President at that time was considered the head of state but does not
power to create local government units. However, under its plenary legislative
manage government affairs). A copy of the said EO was furnished to the
powers, Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create
Senate President and the House Speaker.
local government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict
arises with any provision of the Constitution. In fact, Congress has delegated to However, in December 1926, NCC held its elections and the Senate
provincial boards, and city and municipal councils, the power to create barangays President as well as the House Speaker, notwithstanding EO No. 37 and the
within their jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the objection of the Governor-General, still elected Milton Springer and four
Local Government Code, and the plebiscite requirement in Section 10, Article X of others as Board of Directors of NCC. Thereafter, a quo warranto
the Constitution. Hence, ARMM cannot validly create Shariff Kabunsuan province. proceeding in behalf of the government was filed against Springer et al
questioning the validity of their election into the Board of NCC.
Note that in order to create a city there must be at least a population of at least
250k, and that a province, once created, should have at least one representative ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate President as well as the House Speaker
in the HOR. Note further that in order to have a legislative district, there must at can validly elect the Board Members of NCC.
least be 250k (population) in said district. Cotabato City did not meet the
HELD: No. E.O. No 37 is valid. It is in accordance with the doctrine of
population requirement so Semas contention is untenable. On the other hand,
separation of powers. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislature
ARMM cannot validly create the province of S. Kabunsuan without first creating a
creates the public office but it has nothing to do with designating the
legislative district. But this can never be legally possible because the creation of
persons to fill the office. Appointing persons to a public office is essentially
legislative districts is vested solely in Congress. At most, what ARMM can create
executive. The NCC is a government owned and controlled corporation. It
are barangays not cities and provinces.
was created by Congress. To extend the power of Congress into allowing it,
13. PICHAY JR. V OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
through the Senate President and the House Speaker, to appoint members
FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS
of the NCC is already an invasion of executive powers. The Supreme Court
however notes that indeed there are exceptions to this rule where the
legislature may appoint persons to fill public office. Such exception can be
found in the appointment by the legislature of persons to fill offices within
the legislative branch this exception is allowable because it does not
weaken the executive branch.
15. BERMUDEZ V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts: Petitioner Oscar Bermudez, the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
of Tarlac and Officer-in-Charge of the Office of Provincial Prosecutor, was a
recommendee of then Sec. of Justice Guingona for the position of
Provincial Prosecutor. Private respondent Atty. Conrado Quiaoit had the
support of then Representative Yap of the Second District of Tarlac.
Quiaoit was appointed by Pres. Ramos to the office. Quiaoit took his oath
and assumed office. Bermudez refused to vacate the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor. Nonetheless, Quiaoit, performed the duties and
functions of the Office of Provincial Prosecutor. Petitioner Bermudez
challenged the appointment of Quiaoit primarily on the ground that the
appointment lacks the recommendation of the Sec. Of Justice prescribed
under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Section 9, Chap. II, Title III,
Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code provides that all provincial
and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be appointed by the Pres.
upon the recommendation of the Secretary.
Issue: Whether or not the absence of a recommendation of the Secretary
of Justice to the President can be held fatal to the appointment of Quiaoit
Held: An appointment to a public office is the unequivocal act of
designating or selecting by one having the authority therefor of an
individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or
trust. The appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of
the appointing authority has been complied with and its acceptance
thereafter by the appointee in order to render it effective.
The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointing
authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to
his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who
have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities.
When the Constitution or the law clothes the Pres. with the power to
appoint a subordinate officer, such conferment must be understood as
necessarily carrying with it an ample discretion of whom to appoint. The
Pres. is the head of government whose authority includes the power of
control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices. Control
means the authority of an empowered officer to alter or modify, or even
nullify or set aside, what a subordinate officer has done in the
performance of his duties, as well as to substitute the judgment of the
latter, as and when the former deems it to be appropriate. The Pres. has
the power to assume directly the functions of an executive department,
bureau and office. It can therefore be inferred that the Pres. can interfere
in the exercise of discretion of officials under him or altogether ignore their
recommendations.
The phrase upon recommendation of the Secretary found in Sec. 9,
Chap. II, Title III, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code should be
interpreted to be a mere advice, exhortation or indorsement, which is
essentially persuasive in character and not binding or obligatory upon the
party to whom it is made. The recommendation is here nothing really
more than advisory in nature. The Pres., being the head of the Executive
Department, could very well disregard or do away with the action of the
departments, bureaus or offices even in the exercise of discretionary
authority, and in so opting, he cannot be said as having acted beyond the
scope of his authority.
16. MATIBAG V BENIPAYO
17. DE CASTRO V JBC
18. FUNA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

C. POWER OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SEC 17)
19. LACSON-MAGALLANES V PANO
Jose Magallanes was permitted to use and occupy a land used for pasture
in Davao. The said land was a forest zone which was later declared as an
agricultural zone. Magallanes then ceded his rights to Lacson-Magallanes
Co., Inc. (LMC) of which he is a co-owner.
Jose Pao was a farmer who asserted his claim over the same piece of
land. The Director of Lands denied Paos request. The Secretary of
Agriculture likewise denied his petition hence it was elevated to the Office
of the President.
Executive Secretary Juan Pajo ruled in favor of Pao. LMC averred that the
earlier decision of the Secretary of Agriculture is already conclusive hence
beyond appeal. He also averred that the decision of the Executive
Secretary is an undue delegation of power. The Constitution, LMC asserts,
does not contain any provision whereby the presidential power of control
may be delegated to the Executive Secretary. It is argued that it is the
constitutional duty of the President to act personally upon the matter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the power of control may be delegated to the
Executive Secretary.
HELD: Yes. It is true that as a rule, the President must exercise his
constitutional powers in person. However, the president may delegate
certain powers to the Executive Secretary at his discretion. The president
may delegate powers which are not required by the Constitution for him to
perform personally. The reason for this allowance is the fact that the
resident is not expected to perform in person all the multifarious executive
and administrative functions. The office of the Executive Secretary is an
auxiliary unit which assists the President. The rule which has thus gained
recognition is that under our constitutional setup the Executive Secretary
who acts for and in behalf and by authority of the President has an
undisputed jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or even reverse any order that
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, including the Director
of Lands, may issue.
The act of the Executive Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the President,
shall remain valid until reversed, disapproved, or reprobated by the
President. In this case, no reprobation was made hence the decision
granting the land to Pao cannot be reversed.
20. BLAQUERA V ALCALA
Facts: On Feb. 21, 1992, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 268 which granted
each official and employee of the government the productivity incentive
benefits in a maximum amount equivalent to 30% of the employees one
month basic salary but which amount not be less than P2, 000.00. Said AO
provided that the productivity incentive benefits shall be granted only for
the year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including government
boards of government-owned or controlled corporations and financial
institutions, are strictly prohibited from granting productivity incentive
benefits for the year 1992 and future years pending the result of a
comprehensive study being undertaken by the Office of the Pres.
The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several government
departments and agencies, were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992.
Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres. Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the
grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the maximum
amount of P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO
268, enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior
approval of the President. Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all departments, offices
and agencies which authorized payment of productivity incentive bonus
for the year 1992 in excess of P1, 000.00 to immediately cause the refund
of the excess. In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or
agencies of the government concerned caused the deduction from
petitioners salaries or allowances of the amounts needed to cover the
alleged overpayments.
Issue: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in the valid exercise
of presidential control over the executive departments
Held: The Pres. is the head of the government. Governmental power and
authority are exercised and implemented through him. His power includes
the control of executive departments as provided under Sec. 17, Art. VII of
the Constitution.
Control means the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what
a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The Pres. can,
by virtue of his power of control, review, modify, alter or nullify any action
or decision of his subordinate in the executive departments, bureau or
offices under him.
When the Pres. issued AO 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits,
enjoining heads of government agencies from granting incentive benefits
without approval from him and directing the refund of the excess over the
prescribed amount, the Pres. was just exercising his power of control over
executive departments.
The Pres. issued subject AOs to regulate the grant of productivity incentive
benefits and to prevent discontent, dissatisfaction and demoralization
among government personnel by committing limited resources of
government for the equal payment of incentives and awards. The Pres.
was only exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the heads
of the government agencies who granted incentive benefits to their
employees without appropriate clearance from the Office of the Pres.,
thereby resulting in the uneven distribution of government resources.
The Presidents duty to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too,
is his control of executive departments.
21. DENR V DENR EMPLOYEES
22. SENATE V ERMITA
23. RUFINO V ENDRIGA
D. EMERGENCY POWERS (SEC 18)
24. LAGMAN V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a
state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in the whole of Mindanao on May 23, 2017 for a period not
exceeding 60 days.
ISSUE: Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 of 23 May 2017 may be
considered vague and thus null and void:
a) Extraordinary powers of the President distinguished.
Among the three extraordinary powers, the calling out power is the most
benign and involves ordinary police action The President may resort to this
extraordinary power whenever it becomes necessary to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. [T]he power to call is
fully discretionary to the President;the only limitations being that he acts
within permissible constitutional boundaries or in a manner not
constituting grave abuse of discretion.In fact, the actual use to which the
President puts the armed forces is x x x not subject to judicial review.
The extraordinary powers of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and/or declaring martial law may be exercised only when there is
actual invasion or rebellion, and public safety requires it. The 1987
Constitution imposed the following limits in the exercise of these powers:
(1) a time limit of sixty days; (2) review and possible revocation by
Congress; [and] (3) review and possible nullification by the Supreme
Court.
The framers of the 1987 Constitution eliminated insurrection, and the
phrase imminent danger thereof as grounds for the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law. They
perceived the phrase imminent danger to be fraught with possibilities
of abuse;besides, the calling out power of the President is sufficient for
handling imminent danger.
The powers to declare martial law and to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus involve curtailment and suppression of civil rights and
individual freedom. Thus, the declaration of martial law serves as a
warning to citizens that the Executive Department has called upon the
military to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and while the
emergency remains, the citizens must, under pain of arrest and
punishment, not act in a manner that will render it more difficult to restore
order and enforce the law.As such, their exercise requires more stringent
safeguards by the Congress, and review by the Court.
25. LANSANG V GARCIA
Facts: In the evening of August 21, 1971, at about 9 p.m., while the Liberal
Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda,
Manila, for the presentation of its candidates in the general elections
scheduled for November 8, 1971, two hand grenades were thrown at the
platform where said candidates and other persons were. Eight persons
were killed and many more injured. Proclamation 889 was issued by the
President suspending privilege of writ of habeas corpus stating that there
is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection in order to forcibly seize
political power. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons
(13) who have been arrested without a warrant.
It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is
to be applied to persons caught in flagrante delicto. Incidentally, Proc. 889-
A was issued as an amendment, inserting the word actually staging. Proc.
889-B was also issued lifting the suspension of privilege in 27 provinces, 3
sub-provinces and 26 cities. Proc. 889-C was issued restoring the
suspension in 13 provinces and cities(mostly in Mindanao). Proc. 889-D
further lifted the suspension in 7 provinces and 4 cities. Only 18 provinces
and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose privilege was suspended. Petitioners
maintained that Proclamation No. 889 did not declare the existence of
actual "invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof,
however it became moot and academic since it was amended. Petitioners
further contend that public safety did not require the issuance of
proclamations stating: (a) that there is no rebellion; (b) that, prior to and at
the time of the suspension of the privilege, the Government was
functioning normally, as were the courts; (c) that no untoward incident,
confirmatory of an alleged July-August Plan, has actually taken place after
August 21, 1971; (d) that the President's alleged apprehension, because of
said plan, is non-existent and unjustified; and (e) that the Communist
forces in the Philippines are too small and weak to jeopardize public safety
to such extent as to require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
A resolution was issued by majority of the Court having tentatively arrived
at a consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence
of the factual bases for the proclamations. Now the Court resolves after
conclusive decision reached by majority.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the authority to decide whether the exigency has
arisen requiring suspension (of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus)
belongs to the President and his decision is final and conclusive upon the
courts and upon all other persons.
(2) Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus decreed in Proclamation No. 889-A.
Held: The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review.
Two conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to
suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be "invasion, insurrection,
or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must
require the suspension of the privilege. President has three (3) courses of
action: (a) to call out the armed forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. He had, already, called out the armed forces, proved
inadequate. Of the two other alternatives, the suspension of the privilege
is the least harsh.
Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability, is negatived by the
killing of 5 mayors, 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police; that there
were fourteen (14) meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila
Area in 1970. CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine
major labor organizations; has exploited the (11) major student or youth
organizations; about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the
CPP.
26. JAVELLANA V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
27. SANIDAD V. COMELEC
28. GUDANI V SENGA
29. IBP V ZAMORA
30. SANKALAS V REYES
31. GONZALEZ V ABAYA
32. DAVID V MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
33. FORTUN V GLORIA ARROYO
E. PARDON (SEC 19)
34. MONSATO V FACTORAN
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office
necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction although
such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to that
office.
Facts: Salvacion A. Monsanto, then assistant treasurer of Calbayog City,
and three other accused were convicted before the Sandiganbayan of the
complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. Monsanto
appealed her conviction to the Court which subsequently affirmed the
same. She then filed a motion for reconsideration but while said motion
was pending, she was extended by then President Marcos absolute
pardon. By reason of said pardon, Monsanto wrote the Calbayog City
treasurer requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant
city treasurer since the same was still vacant. The Finance Ministry ruled
that Monsanto may be reinstated to her position without the necessity of a
new appointment not earlier than the date she was extended the absolute
pardon.
Issue: Whether a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon
by the Chief Executive, is entitled to reinstatement to her former position
without need of a new appointment.
Ruling: NO. Pardon granted after conviction frees the individual from all
the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights.
But unless expressly grounded on the person's innocence, it cannot bring
back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. This must be
constantly kept in mind lest we lose track of the true character and
purpose of the privilege. To insist on automatic reinstatement because of a
mistaken notion that the pardon virtually acquitted one from the offense
of estafa would be grossly untenable. A pardon, albeit full and plenary,
cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to
anyone deemed to be of bad character, a poor moral risk, or who is
unsuitable by reason of the pardoned conviction. The absolute
disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the
punishment prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for estafa thru
falsification of public documents. It is clear from the authorities referred to
that when her guilt and punishment were expunged by her pardon, this
particular disability was likewise removed. Henceforth, Monsanto may
apply for reappointment to the office which was forfeited by reason of her
conviction. And in considering her qualifications and suitability for the
public post, the facts constituting her offense must be and should be
evaluated and taken into account to determine ultimately whether she can
once again be entrusted with public funds. Stated differently, the pardon
granted to petitioner has resulted in removing her disqualification from
holding public employment but it cannot go beyond that. To regain her
former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the
usual procedure required for a new appointment.
35. LLAMAS V ORBOS
FACTS:
Ocampo III was the governor of Tarlac Province. Llamas together with
some other complainants filed an administrative case against Ocampo III
for alleged acts constituting graft and corruption. Ocampo III was found
guilty. He was suspended for office for 90 days hence his vice governor,
Llamas, assumed office. In not less than 30 days however, Ocampo III
returned with an AO showing that he was pardoned hence he can resume
office without completing the 90 day suspension imposed upon him.
The petitioner argues that President may grant executive clemency only in
criminal cases. They say that the qualifying phrase after conviction by final
judgment applies solely to criminal cases, and no other law allows the
grant of executive clemency or pardon to anyone who has been convicted
in an administrative case, allegedly because the word conviction refers
only to criminal cases.
ISSUE: WON the President of the Philippines has the power to grant
executive clemency in administrative cases.
HELD:
Yes. It is not specified in the constitution whether it may be considered
under criminal or administrative cases. , if the law does not distinguish, so
we must not distinguish. The Constitution does not distinguish between
which cases executive clemency may be exercised by the President, with
the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. By the same token, if executive
clemency may be exercised only in criminal cases, it would indeed be
unnecessary to provide for the exclusion of impeachment cases from the
coverage of Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution. Cases of
impeachment are automatically excluded inasmuch as the same do not
necessarily involve criminal offenses.
The do not clearly see any valid and convincing reason why the President
cannot grant executive clemency in administrative cases. It is the courts
considered view that if the President can grant reprieves, commutations
and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, with much
more reason can she grant executive clemency in administrative cases,
which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses.
The court stressed, however, that when we say the President can grant
executive clemency in administrative cases, we refer only to all
administrative cases in the Executive branch, not in the Judicial or
Legislative branches of the government.
In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required to convict an
individual is proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in
administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is mere substantial
evidence to support a decision
36. DRILON V CA
37. VIDAL V COMELEC, ESTRADA
Facts:
In September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President
Estrada for the crime of plunder and was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction
during the period of sentence and perpetual absolute disqualification. On
October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
extended executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President
Estrada, explicitly stating that he is restored to his civil and political rights.
In 2009, Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
President. None of the disqualification cases against him prospered but he
only placed second in the results.
In 2012, Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
Certificate of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post, that of the
Mayor of the City of Manila.
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a Petition for Disqualification against Estrada
before the Comelec stating that Estrada is disqualified to run for public
office because of his conviction for plunder sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua with perpetual absolute disqualification.
Petitioner relied on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), in
relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
The Comelec dismissed the petition for disqualification holding that
President Estradas right to seek public office has been effectively restored
by the pardon vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo.
Estrada won the mayoralty race in May 13, 2013 elections. Alfredo Lim,
who garnered the second highest votes, intervened and sought to
disqualify Estrada for the same ground as the contention of Risos-Vidal and
praying that he be proclaimed as Mayor of Manila.
Issue:
May former President Joseph Estrada run for public office despite having
been convicted of the crime of plunder which carried an accessory penalty
of perpetual disqualification to hold public office?
Held:
Yes. Estrada was granted an absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil
and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public
elective office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the
pardon extended to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous,
and unqualified. It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the
Revised Penal Code. The only reasonable, objective, and constitutional
interpretation of the language of the pardon is that the same in fact
conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
It is insisted that, since a textual examination of the pardon given to and
accepted by former President Estrada does not actually specify which
political right is restored, it could be inferred that former President Arroyo
did not deliberately intend to restore former President Estradas rights of
suffrage and to hold public office, orto otherwise remit the penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification. Even if her intention was the contrary,
the same cannot be upheld based on the pardons text.
The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited by legislative
action.
The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of
Article IX-C, provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the
power to grant pardons, along with other acts of executive clemency, to
wit:
F. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT (SEC21)
38. SEC OF JUSTICE V JUDGE LANTION
Facts:
This is a petition for review of a decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court
(RTC). The Department of Justice received a request from the Department
of Foreign Affairs for the extradition of respondent Mark Jimenez to the
U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment. The warrant for his arrest, and other
supporting documents for said extradition were attached along with the
request. Charges include:
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US
Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Fraud by wire, radio, or television
False statement or entries
Election contribution in name of another
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded
with the technical evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty
which they found having matters needed to be addressed. Respondent,
then requested for copies of all the documents included in the extradition
request and for him to be given ample time to assess it. The Secretary of
Justice denied request on the following grounds:
He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of the
evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating
whether the procedures and requirements under the relevant law (PD
1069 Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have
been complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ
of the documents is not a preliminary investigation like in criminal cases
making the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal
prosecution inapplicable.
The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the
information in the documents.
The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in
connection with an extradition request, as Philippines is bound to Vienna
Convention on law of treaties such that every treaty in force is binding
upon the parties.
Mark Jimenez then filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice. RTC
presiding Judge Lantion favored Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to
issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting further
proceedings. Thus, this petition is now at bar.
Issue/s:
Whether or not respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties
of the Philippine Government under the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
Discussions:
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between
a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute
of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation,
however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made
between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence
dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The
doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given
equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
39. AKBAYAN V AQUINO
FACTS:
Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners, as
congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, requesting respondents to submit
to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership
Agreement (JPEPA).
Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the
said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public
concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the same
documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable
participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.
Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. They relied on the ground
that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation then in progress,
thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of
full disclosure of matters that are of public concern like the JPEPA. That
diplomatic negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and
academic because of the subsequent event that occurred?
Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern
and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege?
Held:
On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief
petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA
prior to its finalization between the two States parties, public disclosure
of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the
pendency of the present petition, has been largely rendered moot and
academic.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the
petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the
disclosure of the full text thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to
obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and
Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.
Moving on to the second issue, The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic
negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the
JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however,
that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds,
recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will
be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the
context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public
interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong
enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus, Wherein
petitioners were seeking information from the Presidents representatives
on the state of the then on-going negotiations of the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement. The Court denied the petition, stressing that secrecy of
negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional
provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of
access to information.