1987 CONSTITUTION

February 2, 1987
 It is a written instrument enacted by the direct
action of the people by which the fundamental
powers of the government are established,
limited and defined and by which those powers
are distributed among the several department
for their safe and useful exercise and for the
benefit of the body politic. (Malcolm and Laurel,
Phil. Constitutional Law)
 BASIC PRINCIPLES
 Supreme Law of the Land
 It is the symbol and Monument of the
People’s Will
 Outlines the infrastructures of the
government
 Must be obeyed by all
 Modified either by amendment or revisions
 Courts are the ultimate guardians of our
constitution
NATURE OF THE PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION

 Written
 Conventional
 Rigid
ATHENS, ROME and ENGLAND
 Has been considered an unwritten
constitution
 There laws are scattered in different
conspicuous historical instances and
product of gradual political development.
PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1.Constitution of Liberty
2.Constitution of Government
3.Constitution of Sovereignty
1. CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY
• Bill of Rights
• Citizenship
• Suffrage
• National economy and Patrimony
 2. CONSTITUTION OF
GOVERNMENT
 Powers of Government
Art.VI (LEGISLATIVE DEPT.)
Art.VII (EXECUTIVE DEPT.)
Art. VIII (JUDICIAL DEPT.)
Art. IX (CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS)
Art. X (LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Art. XI ( ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS)
 3. CONSTITUTION OF
SOVEREIGNTY

 How to change the Constitution (

Art. XVII)
1987 CONSTITUTION
CONTAINS XVIII (18) ARTICLES
AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
 REVISION
 rewriting or overhauling of the entire
constitution.
 AMENDMENT
 merely a change or
modification/alternation for the better
 HOW TO REVISED THE 1987
CONSTITUTION:
1. By and act of congress-constituent
assembly – upon a vote of ¾ of all its
members.
2. By a constitution convention upon a
vote of 2/3 of all its members or submit
to the electorate the calling of such
constitutional convention by a majority
vote of all its members.
 HOW TO AMEND THE 1987
CONSTITUTION:
1. By Congress by a vote of ¾ of all its members
2. By constitutional convention
3. By peoples initiative
a. Upon a written petition
b. Must have at least 12% of the total numbers of registered
voters as signatories
c. Of the 12% support petition, at least every legislative
district must be represented by 3% of
the registered voters therein and may
be exercised only once every year.
 RATIFICATION
 Submitted in a Plebiscite called for
the purpose not earlier and sixty
(60) days nor later than 90 days after
the approval of such amendment.
SELF EXECUTIVE PROVISIONS
◦ General Rule:
 It is self Executing rather than
non-self executing provisions
EXAMPLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS
 PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN
FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION
NON-SELF EXECUTING:
Death penalty shall not be imposed,
unless for compelling reasons, involving
heinous crimes, congress may provide
for it/prohibition against political
dynasties only as maybe defined by law.
 GENERAL PROVISIONS
GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION:
1. NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION, WORDS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ARE CLEAR.
2. INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION SHOUL BE GIVEN EFFECT
3. PROVISIONS SHOULD OPERATE RESPECTIVELY
4. IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN ITS ENTIRETY
5. RULE OF GIVING EFFECT TO EVERY PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
NATIONAL TERRITORY

What comprises the national

territory of the Philippines?
1. Comprises the Philippine Archipelago with all
the islands and waters embraced therein
2. All other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domain, including its territorial seas, the sea
bed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas
3. The waters around, between and connecting
the islands of the archipelago regardless of
their breadth and dimensions which form part
of the internal waters of
the Philippines.
 BOUNDARIES OF THE
PHILIPPINES

ON THE EAST – PACIFIC OCEAN

ON THE WEST – SOUTH CHINA SEA
ON THE SOUTH – CELEBES AND SULU SEAS
THE NORTH - TAIWAN
ARCHIPELAGO DOCTRINE
 Came into being in 1956. Espoused by Sen.
Arturo M. Tolentino when he was the chairman
of the Philippine panel to the United Nations
conference on the law of the sea in 1978 and
1982. It is be determined by a 12 nautical mile
stretch from the inner ring of the archipelago
which are being determined by a proper
baseline markings. The water inside the
archipelago doctrine shall be known as the
internal waters, while the extending 12 mile
rules shall constitute the
territorial sea.
 Then came the 200 exclusive economic zone
counted from the outer base line stretch
following the exact contour of the archipelago.
Within this zone, the Philippines enjoys the
exclusive right to explore, exploit, conserve and
manage the maritime resourced of the sea
including its minerals on its sea bed and subsoil.
The unclose has asked all involved countries to
map out their 200 nautical mile ezz from 1959 to
May 13, 2009 or else they would lose the
exclusivity of these areas. Thus, R.A 3046 as
amended by R. A. 5446, otherwise know as the
Philippine Baseline Law.
 Ezz does not mean sovereign ownership but
only sovereign rights to explore and exploit at
the same time.
 For Kalayaan Island in the South China Sea it
was Pres. Marcos claimed that it is part of the
Philippine Territory by signing PD 1596 which
supposedly to be administered as a Municipality
of Palawan.
 Within this Island (Freedom Land) Islands, islets,
cays and Banks knows
as Spratlys.
 STATE IMMUNITY:THE STATE IS
IMMUNED FROM ANY SUIT BY ITS
INHABITANS

 Read the cases of IRRI.Vs. Callado: where the

Supreme Court said that the International Rice
Research Institute, Inc. enjoys immunity from
penal, civil and administrative proceedings
 International Catholic Migration Commission vs.
Calleja et. Al. where the Supreme Court that
IRRI enjoys immunity from suit being an
international organization.
 SEAFDEC vs. NLRC, being an
international agency enjoys
diplomatic immunity.
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
STATE POLICIES
1. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE AND ALL
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY EMANATES FROM
THEM
2. RENUNCIATION OF WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT
OF THE NATIONAL POLICY
3. CIVILIAN AUTHORITY IS AT ALL TIMES SUPREME
OVER THE MILITARY
4. PHILS. IS A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT: CHOSE
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ABD PUBLIC OFFICIALS
ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY TO
DERVE THE PEOPLE WHO CHOSE
THEM.
5. PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE ENTRUSTED WITH
THE DUTY TO DERVE THE PEOPLE WHO
CHOSE THEM.
6. WILL OF THE MAJORITY
7. NO PERSON SHALL BE ABOVE THE LAW
8. SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE
SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
9. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
 STATE POLICIES:
1. INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICIES
2. POLICY OF FREEDOM FROM
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3. PROMOTION OF A JUST AND
DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER
4. SOCIAL JUSTICE
5. FULL RESPECT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND DIGNITY OF EVERY PERSON
6. SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE
7. VITAL ROLE OF YOUTH IN NATION
BUILDING
8. ROLE OF WOMEN IN NATION
BUILDING
9. PROMOTION OF RIGHT TO HEALTH
OF THE PEOPLE
10. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO A
BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL
ECOLOGY
11. PRIORITY TO EDUCATION, SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, ART, CULTURE
AND SPORTS
12. LABOR AS A PRIMARY SOCIAL ECONOMIC
FORCE
13. SELF RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENT
NATIONAL ECONOMY
14. ENCOURAGEMENT OF PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE AND INCENTIVES TO NEEDED
INVESTMENTS
15. PROMOTION OF COMPREHENSIVE RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND AGRARIAN REFORM
16. PROMOTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
17. ENCOURAGEMENT OF NON-
GOVERNMENTAL, COMMUNITY BASED OR
SECTORAL ORGANIZATIONS
18. VITAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION IN NATION BUILDING
19. AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
20. EQUAL ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROHIBITION OF
POLITICAL DYNASTIES AS MAYBE DEFINED
BY LAW
21. HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC
SERVICE
22. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL STATE
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC
INTEREST
SEPARATION OF POWERS:
 It operates to maintain the
legislative powers to the legislative
department, executive powers to
the executive department and those
which are judicial in character to the
judiciary
CHECKS AND BALANCES:
 Under the system of check and balances, one
department is given certain powers by which it
may definitely restrain the others from
exceeding constitutional authority. It may object
or resist any encroachment upon its authority,
or it may question, if necessary any act or acts
which unlawfully interferes with its sphere of
jurisdiction and authority
EXAMPLE:
1. The legislature enacts law, but these laws have to be
presented to the executive department for its approval.

The latter may veto or disapprove the acts of the

legislature if in its judgment they are not in conformity
with the constitution or if they will cause hardship to the
people.

The courts on the other hand are authorized to

determine in actions brought to it for decision, the
validity of the said legislative measures
or executive acts.
The executive department through the pardoning
power, may also modify or set aside the judgment of the
courts

The legislature may amend or revoke decisions of the

courts when its judgment the interpretation given to a
law by the courts is not in harmony with the general
policy of the state. It may do this by enacting a new law
or by amending the old law.

The legislature also checks executive action when it

confirms or refuses to confirm presidential
appointments.
DELEGATION OF POWERS
1. When authorized by the
constitution:
Example:
The Congress may by law grant
emergency powers to the President

Congress may by law grant tariff

powers to the President
2. When delegated to local
governments:
Example:
Police Power has been expressly
delegated by the legislature to the
local law making bodies

Power of Eminent Domain

3. When delegated to the
people at large:
Referendum- a method of
submitting an important legislative
measure to a direct vote of the
whole people
Plebiscite- obtain a direct vote on a
matter of political importance
4. When legislative powers may
be delegated to administrative
bodies (POEA, LTFRB, SEC,
BOI etc.
TEST IN DETERMINING VALID
DELEGATION OF POWER:

1.Whether or nor the power in

question regardless of its nature,
is granted by the Constitution
TEST IN DETERMINING VALID
DELEGATION OF POWER:
2. If the power to be exercised is not
expressly conferred by the constitution,
can it be inferred from or is it necessary
to the proper exercise of the express
power granted to the department
seeking to exercise said power

Example:
The power to enact Implementing
Rules of Procedure
TEST IN DETERMINING VALID
DELEGATION OF POWER:

3. If not granted by the constitution

expressly or impliedly, can its
exercise be justified as inherent or
incidental
 TEST IN DETERMINING VALID
DELEGATION OF POWER:
4. Assuming that the power or the act sought to be
performed is expressly or impliedly granted by the
constitution or that it is justified as in inherent, whether
or not the act or power in question has been
performed in accordance with the rules laid by the
constitution.
Example:
Power to conduct legislative investigation in aid of
legislation must be strictly in accordance with the rules
of procedure must have been published in advance and
the rights of the person appearing therein shall
be fully respected.
ARTICLE VI (LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT)
SECTION 1
The Legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a
SENATE and a HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, EXCEPT TO
THE EXTENT RESERVED TO THE
PEOPLE BY THE PROVISION ON
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
 Legislative power

 the power to enact, amend and

repeal laws, which generally is vested
in Congress.
 It is exercised by Congress and
under the 1987 Constitution can be
exercised by the people known as
Peoples Initiative. (R.A. No. 6735
otherwise known as An Act
Providing for a System of Initiative
and Referendum
Initiative on the Constitution
 petition
to propose amendments to
the constitution
Initiative on Statutes
 petition to enact a national
legislation
Initiative on Local Legislation

 to
enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal or Barangay law
Difference of Referendum and
Plebiscite
Referendum
 consulting the constituents on a
particular legislative measure or
executive measure . it can be to
approve or reject a law passed by
Congress or by local government
units. It is more of consultative in
nature.
Plebiscite
 involves a question of political
decision left to be directly by the
people as for example a change in
the system of government either to
approve or reject it.
 Legislative powers- generally to enact laws.
Congress however may perform non-legislative
powers such as:

a. Power to declare the existence of a state of war

b. Power to delegate emergency powers to the
President
c. Power of appropriation
d. Power of taxation
e. Power to concur treaties through the Senate
f. Power to concur the grant of amnesty
g. Power to act as the Board of Canvassers for
Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections
SECTION 2.

SENATE- composed of 24
SENATORS TO BE ELECTED
AT LARGE (noon of June 30)
SECTION 3.
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 35 years old on the date of the
election
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered voter and resident of the
Philippines for not less than 2 years
immediately preceding the day of the
election
SECTION 4.
 TERM OF OFFICE- SIX (6) YEARS
GOOD FOR 2 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.
Example:
When one resigns, after he is being
elected, the full term shall be counted as
having been served by the Senator.
If he is removed from office by virtue of a
case filed against him, the full term, shall
not be counted as a term being served. It
serves as an interruption.
 SECTION 5- HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES:
1. MEMBERSHIP- NOT MORE THAN 250
MEMBERS UNLESS OTHERWISE FIXED BY
LAW.
2. MANNER OF ELECTION- BY
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS AND THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM
3. TERM OF OFFICE – 3 YEARS FOR 3
CONSECUTIVER TERMS (NOON OF June 30)
4. QUALIFICATIONS:
 NATURAL BORN CITIZENS OF THE
PHILIPPINES
 AT LEAST 25 YEARS OF AGE ON THE DAY
OF THE ELECTION
 ABLE TO READ AND WRITE
 A REGISTERED VOTER OF THE DISTRICT
 RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT FOR A
PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN ONE (1)
YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
DAY OF THE ELECTION
5.VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE
OFFICE SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE
CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR
THE FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS
ELECTED.

6. EACH CITY WITH A POPULATION OF

AT LEAST 250 OR EACH PROVINCE
SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ON
REPRESENTATIVE.
 7. ISSUE OF WHO IS A NATURAL BORN
CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES:

A. CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM

BIRTH WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM
ANY ACT TO ACQUIRE OR PERFECT THEIR
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
B. THOSE WHO ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE AGE
OF MAJORITY AND WAS BORN BEFORE
JANUARY 17, 1973 OF FILIPINO MOTHERS.
CASES ON RESIDENCY:
 Facts of the Case:
Imelda Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy
as representative of the First District of Leyte.
She stated in her COC that she had been residing
in the district for 7 months. Her opponent for the
same position filed a petition to disqualify her for
the lack of the required one year residence.
Imelda filed an amended/corrected COC stating
that she had been residing in the district since
childhood. She added that it was an honest
mistake/misinterpretation the
entry of 7 months.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Residence for election purposes is
synonymous with domicile. Mere absence
of an individual from his permanent
residence without the intention to
abandon it does not result in the loss of
domicile. When petitioner married former
Pres. Marcos, Imelda lived with him in
various residence for different purposes.
None of these points to an intention to
abandon her domicile in Tacloban.
She celebrated her birthdays and other
important personal milestones in her
home province. Imelda did not lost her
domicile of origin by operation of law as a
result of her marriage to the late
President. While the husband has the
right to fix the residence of the family, the
law refers to residence and not domicile.
Imelda merely committed an honest
mistake in writing 7 months in the space
for residence.
IMELDA MARCOS VS. COMELEC- G.R. 119976
SEPT. 18, 1995/AQUINO VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO.
120265, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995:

 Ruling of the Supreme Court: What is

required is not just temporary residence
but domicile. Normally, a persons
domicile is his domicile of origin. If a
person never loses his or her
domicile, the one year requirement
is not relevant because he/she is
deemed never to have left the place.
 On the other hand, a person loses
his domicile, either by voluntary
abandonment for a new one, or by
marriage to a husband applying the
civil codes provision dictating the
wifes domicile, one must be
domiciled in the new place for at
least one year immediately
preceding the election if one wants
to represent the place in Congress.
 If he/she has lost his/her domicile and
decides to re-establish herself or
himself in his former domicile, the
one year requirement would also
apply.
 Case of Domino vs COMELEC,
G.R. No. 134015 July 19, 1999:
 Facts of the case:
Domino was domicile of origin was
Candon, Ilocos Sur, and that sometime in
1991, he acquired a new domicile of
choice at Quezon City. This was his
statement in his COC in 1995 when he
ran for the 3rd District of Quezon City. In
the 1998 elections Domino filed his COC
as candidate for Representative
for the Province of Saranggani.
 It was his position that his actual physical
presence in Alabel Sarangani since
December 1996 was sufficiently
established by the lease of a house and lot
located therein in January 1997 and the
affidavits and certifications under oath of
the residents in the said locality.
 Issue: What is the domicile of Domino,
Quezon City or Saranggani?
Held: A person’s domicile once
established is considered to continue and
will not be deemed lost until a new one is
established. To successfully effect a change
of domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence
and establishing a new one and definite
acts which correspond with the purpose.
In other words, there must be basically be
an animus manendicoupled with animus
non revertendi. The purpose to remain in
or at the domicile of choice must be for
an indefinite period of time: change of
residence must be voluntary and the
residence of the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual.
Actual and physical is not in itself sufficient
to show that from said date he had
transferred his residence in Sarangani. To
establish a new domicile of choice,
personal presence in the place must be
coupled with conduct indicative of that
intention.
While residence simply requires bodily
presence in a given place, domicile requires
not only such bodily presence in that place
but also a declared and probable intent to
make it one’s fixed ad permanent place of
abode. The lease contract entered into
sometime in January 1997, does not
adequately support a change of domicile.
The lease contract may be indicative of
DOMINO’s intention to reside in
Sarangani but it does not engender the
kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of one’s original domicile.
Section 8
 Date of the Elections for Congress:
Unless otherwise provided by law, the
regular election of the Senators and
members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the 2nd
Monday of May.
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
Representative thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term.
These 2 provisions provide for the
holding of a regular and special
elections.
Section 10
 The salaries of Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives shall be
determine by law. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until
after the expiration of the full term
of all the Members of the Senate
and the House of Representatives
approving such increase.
Note:
Under the above provision, Congress is
not prohibited from increasing or
decreasing the salary of its members.
However, any increase can take effect only
after the expiration of the full term of the
members of Congress approving such
increase:
Section 11
A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall in all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in Session. No
member shall be questioned nor be held
liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
Note:
Freedom from arrest of members of
Congress:
Every member of Congress is entitled to
the privilege from arrest while
Congress is in Session while he is
attending or not, regular or special
and for as long as it has not adjourned.
When Immunity cannot be invoked.

1. The offense by reason of which the

arrest is made is punishable by more
than six years imprisonment.
2. Congress is no longer in session.
Freedom from being questioned for speech
and debate (parliamentary privilege of
speech) made in Congress.
When immunity cannot be claimed:
1. The member is not acting as a member
of Congress for he is not entitled to
any privileges above his fellow citizens.
2. The member is being questioned in
Congress itself, especially if his words
and conduct constitute disorderly
behavior and unbecoming thereof.
Section 12
All members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives shall upon assumption
of office make a full disclosure of their
financial and business interests. They shall
notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from
the filing of a proposed legislation of
which they are the authors.
Note:

Disclosure of financial business

interests, and potential conflict of
interest.
 Section 13
No Senator or Member of the House of
Representative may hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof
including government owned or controlled
corporation or their subsidiaries during his
term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he
be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
 Note:
These are the so called Incompatible Office
and Forbidden Office. The period of ineligibility
does not come to an end until after the
member shall have left the office by termination
of his term. Hence a member of Congress shall
not be eligible for appointment to such office
even if he resigns or loses his seat. Without the
prohibition, Members of Congress might be
tempted to create offices or increase their
emoluments for personal gain.
 Exceptions here:

 If the President appoints members of Congress

to serve in the Peace Panel between the GRP
and NDF
Section 14
No Senator or member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially 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 corporation or its subsidiary during his term
of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before
any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit
or where he may called upon to act on account of his
office.
Note:
1. Prohibition as counsel before any court of
justice. This is purely personal. A Law Firm for
which the member of Congress is a member
can appear.
2. Prohibition against Financial Interest in any
contract with government.
3. Financial Interest in any contract. This is
financial investments or subscription to the
capital stock of government corporations or
business out of which a member of Congress is
to derive profit or gain. Borrowing money from
government banks cannot be considered one
involving financial investment from which the
borrower expects to obtain profit.
 Section 15
The Congress shall convene once every year on
the 4th 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 30 days before
the opening of its next regular session, exclusive
of Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. The
President may call a special session at any
time.
 Note:
 Instances when Congress meets even
without the President’s call.
1. When Congress meets to canvass the
votes and the returns of the election of
the President and Vice President (Section 4,
Art. VII);
2. When Congress convenes in
accordance with its rules to enact a law
calling for a special election to elect a
President and Vice President (Section 10 Art.
VIII);
3. When the House of Representatives
acts on a verified complaint for
impeachment or indorses the same,
and the Senate subsequently tries and
decides on the Articles of
Impeachment indorsed by the House
of Representatives (Section 3, Art. XI)
4. Following a proclamation of martial
law or suspension of a privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, and 24 hours
following such proclamation or
suspension, Congress shall convene in
accordance with its rules without a
need of call (Section 18, Article VII).
When are Joint Sessions called and how
shall the 2 houses of Congress vote?
1. When they choose the President under Section 4,
Art.VII;
2. When they determine the disability of the
President under Section 11, Art.VII;
3. When they confirm the nomination of the Vice
President under Section 9, Art.VII;
4. When they propose constitutional
amendments under Section 1, Art. XVII;
5. 2/3 votes of both House in joint Session
assemble voting separately is needed to declare
the existence of a state of war.
6. In all the above instances, both Houses meet in
joint session but they vote separately.
 When do they meet in joint
session and vote jointly?
1. When they revoke or extend the
proclamation of martial law or a
proclamation suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
under Section 18, Article VII;
2. Both Houses cannot during sessions
adjourns for more than 3 days or
transfer to a place other than that in
which the 2 houses shall be sitting
without the consent of the other.
 SECTION 16
1. The Senate shall elect its President and the
House of Representatives its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other
officers as it may deem necessary.

2. A majority of each House shall constitute a

quorum to do business, but a smaller
number may adjourn from day to day and
may compel the attendance of absent
Members in such manner, and under such
penalties, as such House may provide.
3. Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior. And. With the concurrence of 2/3 of all its
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60
days.

4. Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings,

and from time to time publish the same, excepting
such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
security; and yeas and nays on any question shall, at
the request of 1/5 of the Members present, be
entered in the Journal.

Each House shall also keep a Record on its

proceedings.
5. Neither House during the sessions of the
Congress shall, without the consent of the
other, adjourn for more than 3 days, or to
any other place than that in which the 2
Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 16.
Who are the Officers of Congress?
 Senate: Senate President, who is elected
by a majority vote by the Senate
members.
 House of Representatives: Speaker of the
House who is elected by the respective
members of the House of
Representatives
 Both Houses: Such other officers as they
deem necessary
 Case in point:
 Santiago vs. Guingona G.R. No. 134577, Nov. 18,
1998,: Senators Fernan and Tatad contested the
Senate Presidency. Fernan won by a vote of 20 to
2. With the agreement of Senator Santiago, Tatad
manifested manifested that he was assuming the
position of minority leader, explaining that those
who had voted for Fernan comprised the majority,
while those who had voted for him, belonged to
the Minority. However, 7 Lakas Senators had chosen
Senator Guingona as the minority leader. Fernan
recognized Guingona as such. Santiago and Tatad
filed before the SC a petition for quo warranto
alleging that Guingona had been usurping the
Senate minority leader alleging that it rightfully
belonged to Tatad.
Issue: Does the Court have
jurisdiction over the petition?
Yes, it is well within the power and
jurisdiction of the court to inquire
whether the Senate or its officials
committed a violation of the constitution
or gravely abused their discretion in the
exercise of their functions and
prerogatives.
Was Section 16, not observed?
 The provision is explicit on the manner of electing a
Senate President and a House Speaker, but silent on
selecting the other officers in both chambers. The
method of choosing who will be the other officers
must be prescribed by the Senate itself. The Senate
did not prescribed how the Minority Leader shall be
chosen. In the absence however of any statutory
guideline, the Court is devoid of any basis upon which
to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate.
On grounds of respect for the basic concept of
separation of powers, court may not intervene in the
internal affairs of the legislature. It is not within the
province of the courts to direct Congress how to do
its work.
What is a quorum?
Is the required number of members of
each House to be present in order to
legally transact a business. Each house
shall determine its own quorum. The
Constitution requires that a majority of
each House to constitute a quorum.
Simple majority, 50% plus 1 in ordinary
businesses constitutes a quorum.
To pass a legislation:
 Ratification of a treaty - 2/3 votes
concurrent votes
 To Discipline a member -2/3 of all the
members
 To determine the existence of war- 2/3
votes of all the members of both houses
There is a difference between a majority of
all the members of a body from a majority
of the body, the latter requires less
than the former (example members who
are suspended or otherwise prevented
from participating in the functions or who
may be outside the country, and when
Congress cannot enforce its coercive
power to attend, are not to be counted in
considering the quorum.
 Is the disciplinary action taken by
Congress against a member subject to
Judicial Review?
 No, because each house is the sole judge
of what disorderly behavior is (Osmena vs.
Pendatun 109 Phil. 863 (1960)
What is the “enrolled bill doctrine”
 The signing of a bill by the Speaker of the
House and President of the Senate and
the Certification by the Secretaries of
both Houses of Congress that such bill
was passed are conclusive of its due
enactment. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R.
No. 127255, August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA
268)
 The enrolled bill is the official copy of the
approved legislation and bears the
certification of the Presiding officer of the
legislative boy. The respect due to a co-
equal department requires the courts to
accept the certification of the presiding
officer of the legislative body. The respect
due to coequal department requires the
courts to accept the certification of the
Presiding officer as conclusive assurance
that the bill so certified is authentic.
(Casco Phil. Chemical Co.Vs. Gimenez 7
SCRA 347 (1963).
Another case on quorum:
 The Avelino case:
Avelino and Cuenco were both members of the
Senate. Avelino was then the Senate President. In
one of the Session days, he walked out of the
Session hall in anger and protest together with his
followers Senators. 12 Senators were left behind
and continued meeting. In the Process they
replaced Avelino with Cuenco as the new Senate
President. Avelino went to the Supreme Court
and questioned the act of the 12 Senators, citing
that they did not constitute the quorum to
replace him there being 24 Senators of the
Senate.
SC ruling. There was majority considering
that the number that should be reckoned is
just 23, one Senator being in the United
States at that time. Said Senator is not only
outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines and also outside and beyond the
coercive jurisdiction of the smaller number
of Senators. The remaining Senators can
then adjourn from day to day and compel
the attendance of absent members.
SECTION 17
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of 9 Members, 3 of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by
the Chief Justice, and the remaining 6 shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 17
 Who is the sole Judge of all contests
relating to the Election, returns and
qualifications of the members of
Congress?
◦ The respective Electoral Tribunal of each
House shall be the sole judge. Not the
Supreme Court, nor each House of Congress
or the COMELEC. This when there is an
election protest or contest by a defeated
candidate and challenges the qualifications of a
proclaimed winner.
 The power however of each House
to defer the oath taking of members
until final determination of election
contests filed against them has been
retained by each House, not the
Electoral Tribunal.
When does a case pass from the
COMELEC to the Electoral Tribunal?
◦ Once a winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
Office as a Member of the House,
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the election
contests relating to his election, returns, and
qualifications ends, and HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins. (Aggabao vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 163756, 2005, Limkaichong vs.
Comelec, G.R. No. 178831, 2009)
Who decides whether a party
list representative is qualified?
◦ The HRET. But the COMELEC can
decided whether a party-list
organization is qualified to join the party
list system
 Case in point: Barbers vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 165961, June 22, 2005
 Facts:
 COMELEC proclaimed Biazon as the 12th raking duly
elected Senator in the 2004 elections. Barbers
claimed that there were remaining uncanvassed
COC’s and special elections, thus, the proclamation of
Biazon was illegal and premature based on an
incomplete canvass.
 Ruling:
 Although the election returns have not been
recovered by the Board of Canvassers, the latter may
terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates
elected on the basis of the available election returns if
the missing elections returns will not affect the
results of the election.
 The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the instant petition to annul a
proclamation of a Senator, it is only the
Electoral Tribunal who has the exclusive
jurisdiction to act on the complaint of
Barbers.
 SECTION 18
There shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex
officio Chairman, 12 Senators, and 12 Members of
the House of Representatives, elected by each
House on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The Chairman of the
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie.
The Commission shall act on all appointments
submitted to it within 30 session days of the
Congress from the submission. The Commission
shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
SECTION 18
The Commission on Appointments acts
as the legislative check on the appointing
authority of the President. For the
effectivity of the appointment of certain
key officials , the consent of the
Commission on Appointments.
Composition: 12 Senators, 12 Members of
the House with Senate President as ex
officio chairman.
 How are they elected: on the basis of
proportional representation from the political
parties or organizations registered under the
party list system. The chairman cannot vote
except in case of a tie.

 Commission on Appointments shall act on all

appointments submitted to it within 30 days
from their submission.

 Commission on Appointments meet only

during the session of Congress. Appointments
made by the President during the recess are
considered merely as ad interim appointments.
 What happens to ad interim appointments
not acted upon at the time of adjournment
of Congress? They are deemed by passed.
 What are the Offices which need the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments:
 Heads of the Executive Departments
 Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls
 Officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
from the rank of colonel or navy captain
 Members of the Judicial and Bar Council
 Commissioners of the COMELEC
 Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission
 Commissioners of the Commission on Audit
 Regional Consultative Commission
 SECTION 19
The Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on
Appointments shall be constituted within 30
days after the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall have been organized with
the Election of the President and the Speaker.
The Commission on Appointments shall meet
only while the Congress is in session, at the call
of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members,
to discharge such powers and functions as are
herein conferred upon it.
SECTION 19
 Shall be constituted within 30 days after
the organization of the Senate and House
of Representatives The Commission on
Appointments shall meet only while
Congress is in session at the call of its
Chairman or a majority of all its members
 SECTION 20
The records and books of accounts of the
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
public in accordance with law, and such books
shall be audited by the Commission on Audit
which shall publish annually an itemized list of
amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each
Member.
 SECTION 21
The Senator or the House of Representatives
or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be represented.
Section 20- and Section 21-
 There are 2 provisions on legislative hearing.
Sections 21 and 22. Section 21 is about
legislative investigations in aid of legislation.
Its scope and limitation has been the subject
of he ruling in Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No.
169777, April 20, 2006, upon which the
Supreme Court specified who may and not
be summoned to the legislative hearings.
Even if the Department Head is the alter
ego of the President, they can be summoned
to appear in the said legislative hearings.
 In fact in the case of Sabio vs. Gordon,
G.R.No.174318 Oct. 17, 2006, the Court
ruled that anyone except the President and
the Justices of the Supreme Court may be
summoned to appear in said legislative
hearings in aid of legislation. Also, that a
court cannot prevent a witness from
appearing in legislative hearings in aid of
legislation. (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
vs. Judge Majaducon, G.R. No. 136760, July
29, 2003.
 Section 22 for its part, establishes the rule
for the exercise of what is called the
“oversight function” of Congress. Such
function is intended to enable Congress to
determine how laws it has passed are
being implemented.

 In deference however to separation of

powers, and because Department Heads
are alter egos of the President, they may
not appear without the permission of the
President.
Limitations of the Investigative
Power of Congress:
1. Inquiry shall be conducted only in aid of
legislation
2. Constitutional right against self-
incrimination shall not be violated
3. The right to counsel
4. Rules of Procedure governing the
investigation shall be published and shall
made known to the person concerned
5. Such congressional inquiry shall not serve a
members personal aggrandizement.
May the inherent power of Congress
to punish for contempt be applied
mutatis mutandis to local legislative
bodies?
 No, the power is recognized as inherent
in Congress as a matter of self-
preservation of one of the 3 independent
and coordinate branches of government.
It is sui generies and may not be claimed
by local legislative bodies. (Negros
Oriental II Electric Cooperative vs.
SangguniangPanlungsod, G.R. 72492, Nov.
5, 1987)
 SECTION 22
The heads of the departments may upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the
request of either House, as the rules of each House
shall provide, appear before and be heard by such
House on any matter pertaining to their departments.
Written questions shall be submitted to the President
of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least 3 days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpretations shall not be limited to
written questions, but may cover matters related
thereto. When the security of the State, or the public
interest so requires and the President so states in
writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.
 SECTION 23
1. The Congress by a vote of 2/3 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 time 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 and 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 24
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of
local application , and private bills shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose on concur with
amendments.
SECTION 25
1. The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President
for the operation of the Government as
specified in the budget. The form, content, and
manner of preparation of the budget shall be
prescribed by law.
2. No provision or enactment shall be
embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it related specifically to some particular
appropriation therein. Any such provision or
enactment shall be limited in its operation to
the appropriation to which it relates.
3. The procedure in approving appropriations
for the Congress shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations for
other departments and agencies.

4. A special appropriations bill shall specify the

purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal
therein.
5. No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the
speaker of the House of the Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and
the Heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorizes to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.
6. Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by
appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.

7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the

Congress shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations law for the preceding fiscal
year shall be deemed reenacted and shall
remain in force and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
 Meaning of budget
A budget is the financial program of the
national government for a designated
calendar year, consisting of statements of
estimated receipts from revenues and
expenditures for the calendar on which it is
intended to be effective based on the results
of operations during the proceeding
calendar year.

It refers to the financial plan required to be

prepared pursuant to Article VII, Sec. 22 of
the Constitution.
Submission of proposed budget
by the President
The “budget” of expenditures and sources of
financing, including receipts from existing and
proposed revenue measures (see Art. VII, Sec. 22,)
in which the President has to prepare and submit
to Congress is intended as a guide for the latter
to in determining the specific governmental
activities for which public funds should be spent.
The General Appropriations Bill (GAB) cannot be
prepared in the House of Representative without
the budget of expenditures and sources of
financing (BESF) as the former will be based on
the latter.
The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be
prescribed by law. (Ibid.) The President
proposes the budget, Congress authorizes
it, and the President implements it in
accordance with the restrictions set in the
Constitution and the General
Appropriations Act.
Increase of appropriation
recommended by the President
1. For the executive department- Congress
may not increase the appropriations
recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified
in the budget. (Sec. 25[1].) Being
responsible for the proper operation of
the executive department, the President is
naturally the party best qualified to know
the maximum amount that the operation
of his department requires.
2. For legislative and judicial departments, and
constitutional bodies- Neither can Congress
increase its outlay and that for the judiciary
and the constitutional bodies in the
proposed budget on the theory that there is
already a consensus on the amounts needed
by them when the proposed budget is being
prepared. With respect to the judiciary, its
appropriations may not be reduced by
Congress below the amount appropriated
for the previous year. (Art. VIII, Sec. 3.) In the
case of Congress, having the authority over
the appropriations itself, the limitation is
necessary as a check against its abuse.
Prohibitions against riders.
The main object of the restrictions in Sec. 25(2) is to do
away with what are call “riders.” (see Sec. 26(1).)

1. Meaning of rider- A rider is a provision or enactment

inserted in the general appropriations bill which does
not relate to some particular appropriations therein.
A provision, for instance, in the general
appropriations law “prohibiting government officers
and employees to do private work” or referring to
the “calling to active duty and the reversion to
inactive status of reserve officers” is a rider as it has
no direct connection with any definite item of
appropriation in the law.
2. Rider without force and effect- Such provision shall
be of no force and effect. In legal contemplation, it
is as though it has never been passed. The
Constitution mandates that any provision or
enactment in the general appropriations bill shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation to
which it relates. (Sec. 25[2])

3. Objective of the Constitution- It is not only to prevent

the general appropriations bill from being used as a
vehicle which controversial legislative matters may
be enacted into law without due consideration, but
also to facilitate the enactment of such an
important law that will set the government
machinery in motion.
 Procedure in approving
appropriations
The Constitution requires a standard procedure in
approving appropriations. The procedure adopted
for approving appropriations for other
departments and agencies shall be followed
strictly in approving appropriations for Congress.
(Sec. 25[3]). This provides a safeguard against the
abuse or misuse by Congress of its power to
appropriate.

Under the 1935 Constitution, the appropriations

for both houses of Congress, unlike in the case of
the budgets of other government agencies, were
not deliberated upon in open session.
Requirements with respect to
special appropriations bill
The Constitution requires that:
1. It should specify the purpose for which it is
intended; and
2. It should be supported by funds actually
available as certified to by the National
Treasurer or to be raised by a corresponding
revenue proposal included therein. (Sec. 25[4])

The restrictions are intended to put an end to

the legislative practice under the 1935
Constitution of passing appropriations bills
without the corresponding funds.
Requirement to insure a
balanced budget
The Constitution requires that the level of
expenditures must be within the level of the
revenues expected to be raised from
existing and proposed revenue measures
(Sec. 25 [4]; see Art.VII, Sc. 22) to prevent
deficit spending.

In the old Congress, some members

indulged in the practice of introducing or
advocating legislation for additional
expenditures (e.g., subsidies, salary increases,
etc.)
while at the same time opposing measures
that would raise revenues to finance the
additional expenditures that they
themselves proposed. This inconsistency is
no longer possible under the new
Constitution which expressly requires that
the appropriation proposals must be
accompanied by certification of actual fund
availability or corresponding revenue-
raising measures.
 Prohibition against transfer of
funds.
1. Aim of prohibition- The Constitution prohibits the
enactment of any law authorizing any transfer of
appropriations from one branch to another. (Sec.
25[5]). The provision is aimed at stopping the
practice in the past of giving the President
authority to transfer funds from one department
to another or under one appropriation law to
another, which in effect invested him with the
legislative power to appropriate, thereby
providing a loophole for violations of the
appropriations act. The prohibition plugs this
loophole.
2. Augmentation of any item from savings in other
items- Some flexibility, however, is allowed in
budget implementation through the process
of augmentation. The President, the Senate
President, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the Heads of the
Constitutional Commissions may be
authorized by law to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings (e.g., difference between
authorized appropriations for a particular
project or activity and actual costs thereof) in
other items of their respective appropriations.
(Ibid.)
3. Restrictions on augmentation.- There are 3
restrictions:
a. savings have to be generated from other
items in their respective appropriations,

b. the item to be augmented exists, and

c. the augmentation or increase in the

appropriations has been previously authorized
by Congress. In short, savings from the other
items may be transferred to an existing item,
the appropriations for which is found
deficient. The transfer must be authorized by
law.
 Rule as to discretionary funds.
1. When appropriation allowed- Congress may
appropriate funds (e.g., intelligence funds) for
certain operations or activities of the
government to be disbursed at the
discretion of particular officials. This is
allowed when it is not possible to determine
beforehand when the expenditures have to
be made, the exact amounts needed, and the
specific use thereof. Or when, for reasons of
national security, such expenditures are
classified or forbidden to be disclosed to the
public by law or administrative regulations.
2. Conditions- As a safeguard against illegal,
unnecessary, and extravagant
disbursements, or misappropriations by
officials authorized to spend such funds,
the Constitution imposes the following
conditions:
a. The disbursement must be only for
public purposes;
b. It must be supported by appropriate
vouchers; and
c. It must be subject to such guidelines
s may be prescribed by law. (Sec. 25[6])
 Automatic reappropriation.
In case of failure of Congress to pass the
general appropriations bill for the ensuing
fiscal year, the general appropriations law
for the preceding fiscal year shall be
deemed reenacted. IT shall remain force
and effect until the general appropriations
bill is passed by Congress. (Sec. 25[7]).
This provision is not found in the 1935
Constitution.
It is evident that the consequences of failure,
voluntary or otherwise, on the part of
Congress to enact a general appropriations law
for the operations of the government are
serious; and so the wisdom of a constitutional
provision for the automatic reapproriation of
the same amounts appropriated for the
preceding fiscal year is beyond question. With
the budget reenacted rule, the government
continues to function even without an
approved budget. It undermines, however,
Congress’ power of the purse because the
President cannot be pressured by Congress
into agreeing to a compromise or deal in order
to avoid crisis in the event Congress fails to
pass the budget in time.
Understanding the SC
ruling on the DAP
What are the main points and highlights of the
Supreme Court decision on the controversial
Disbursement Acceleration Program?
MANILA, Philippines – On July 1, 2014,
the Supreme Court ruled on the
controversial Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP).
Voting 13-0-1, excluding retired justice
Roberto Abad, the High Court ruled 3
schemes under the DAP unconstitutional.
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin penned the main
decision, with 6 Justices writing separate
opinions – Antonio Carpio, Presbitero
Velasco Jr, Arturo Brion, Mariano del
Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic
Leonen. (Read the ruling and separate
opinions.)
 Justice Teresita de Castro inhibited from the
voting, while Velasco, who was on official leave,
gave his vote to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno.

The High Tribunal ruled as unconstitutional

the following:
 the creation of savings prior to the end of
the fiscal year and the withdrawal of these
funds for implementing agencies
 the cross-border transfers of the savings
from one branch of government to another
 the allotment of funds for projects,
activities, and programs not outlined in the
General Appropriations Act
What is the issue that the
Supreme Court addressed in
its resolution pertaining to the
Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP)?
Petitioners challenged the
constitutionality of DAP, which was
intended by the Aquino administration
to accelerate government spending.
They also questioned National Budget
Circular 541 which, in effect,
characterized unreleased
appropriations and unobligated or
unused allotments as savings. The
question brought to the Court was
whether the Executive exceeded his
powers to augment items in the
budget within the executive
branch of government.
When exactly did the DAP start?
The closest indication is a memorandum dated
October 12, 2011 from Budget Secretary
Butch Abad seeking approval from the
President to implement DAP. The memo
listed funding sources that amounted to
P72.11 billion (about $1.7 billion) which
could be used for other proposed priority
projects – among them, National Housing
Authority programs, capitalization of the
Bangko Sentral, and peace and development
interventions in the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao.
 How was DAP supposed to be
implemented and funded?
There were 3 ways identified:
(1) by declaring savings from various
departments and agencies derived from
pooling unobligated allotments and
withdrawing unreleased approprirations;
(2) by releasing unprogrammed funds;
(3) by applying the “savings” and
unprogrammed funds to augment existing
programs, activities or projects (PAPs) or
to support other priority PAPs.
Can the President transfer
funds?
With limits. While the power to transfer
funds from one item to another within
the executive branch existed since 1909,
during the time of American Governors-
General, this power was reduced to
merely augmenting items from savings.
The 1987 Constitution put limits on the
President’s discretion over appropriations
during the budget execution phase (when
the budget law is being implemented).
The Constitution authorizes the
President, the Senate President, the
Speaker, the Chief Justice, and heads of
Constitutional Commissions to transfer
funds “within their respective offices”;
when these funds involve savings
generated from appropriations also for
their respective offices; and when the
purpose of the transfer is to augment
items in the Appropriations Law again
for their respective offices.
How is "savings" defined? How did
this issue make DAP problematic?
The Court defined savings as funds that remain
unspent after the completion or discontinuance
of a project. Congress provided that appropriated
funds are available for a period of one fiscal year.
But in a May 20, 2013 memo, Budget Secretary
Butch Abad sought omnibus authority to
consolidate savings and unused funds to finance
the DAP on a quarterly basis. This shortened the
period that funds were supposed to be available
for, giving rise to questions about the budget
department’s own definition of savings.
How were funds under DAP
spent? What are related issues?
According to the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM), as of 2013,
P144.4 billion (about $3.3 billion) was
released to implement programs,
activities, projects (PAPs). In 2011, P82.5
billion (about $1.8) was released, while
P54.8 billion (about $1.2 billion) was
released in 2012. About 9% of the total
DAP applied to PAPs were identified by
lawmakers.
The DBM also said that 116 PAPs were
financed by DAP, each of which had
existing appropriations in the budget. The
Office of the Solicitor-General submitted
7 evidence packets in support of this
claim, but the Court found that there
were projects not covered by an existing
appropriation – for example, items under
the P1.6-billion DREAM project under
the Department of Science and
Technology. DREAM refers to Disaster
Risk, Exposure, Assessment and
Mitigation.
Are “cross-border” transfers or
augmentations of the budget
allowed?
No. Cross-border transfers refer to the
movement of funds from one branch of
government to another. These are allowed only
within respective offices – thus the use of DAP
funds to augment funds of the Commission on
Audit (for its IT infrastructure program and the
hiring of litigation experts in the amount of
P143.7 million, or about $3.2 million) and the
House of Representatives (for a legislative library
and archives building/e-library in the amount of
P250 million, or about $5.6 million) violate
the Constitution.
What is the operative fact doctrine
and why is it relevant to DAP?
In effect, it says let it be, because the
consequences resulting from DAP could
no longer be undone. For instance, the
positive results of DAP funding could
include roads, bridges, homes for the
homeless, hospitals, classrooms.
Not applying the operative fact doctrine
would require the physical undoing and
destruction of these infrastructure – a
considerable waste. The application of the
doctrine, however, does not exonerate
the proponents and implementers of the
DAP – unless it is established that they
acted in good faith.
Prohibition against delegation
of legislative powers
1. Rule founded on principle of separation of
powers- A branch or department of the
government may not delegate to another
department or to any other body the
powers entrusted to it by the
Constitution. Thus, Congress is prohibited
from delegating its legislative powers. In
the absence of this rule, the principle of
separation of powers can hardly exist.
2. Rule not absolute- The rile of non-delegability
of legislative power, however, is not absolute. It
does not apply:

a. where the delegation is expressly authorized

by the Constitution (see Secs. 23[2]. 28[2]
supra. ); and

b. where the delegation is made to

governments. (Art. XI, Sec. 5.) This exception is
logical for, after all, municipal corporations are
merely instrumentalities of the State for the
better administration of the government in
matters of local concern.
Prohibition against the enactment
of irreplaceable laws
 1. Essence of legislative power- Legislative power is
the authority to make laws as well as to alter and
repeal them. The continuous making of laws – new
laws as well as those that amend, alter, or repeal
existing ones – is the very essence of legislative
power. The legislative prerogative to pass laws
cannot be curtailed; otherwise, time may come
when succeeding legislative bodies will have
nothing more to do because the entire field of
legislation has been completely exhausted
through the enactment of permanent legislation.
2. Consequences to public welfare of irrepealable
laws permanent. – Furthermore, injurious
consequences to the country would result
if legislation passed by the lawmaking body
assumes a permanent character. The policy
of the state would become fixed and
unchangeable on great national interest in
spite of changed conditions and times. Laws
enacted several decades ago for a particular
need may no longer be beneficial today. If
they cannot be replaced, they will retard, if
not destroy, the public welfare.
Requirements as to subject and
title of bills.
1. One title, one subject- A proposed law is
called a bill. The Constitution requires
that every bill passed by Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof. (Sec. 26[1].)
2. Purposes of constitutional requirement- They are:

a. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling

legislation;
b. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature; and
c. To fairly apprise the people, through such
publications of legislative proceedings as is
usually made, of the subjects of legislation that
are being considered, in order that they may
have opportunity of being heard thereon by
petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.
 SECTION 26
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.

2. No bill passed by either House shall become law

unless it has passed three readings in separate days, and
printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members 3 days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of
its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Limitations on the power of
Congress.
The legislative power is not without limitations.
Such limitations may be classified into:

1. Substantive- They refer to the subject matter of

legislation, and they may be:
a. Implied limitations- They do not arise from any
specific provision of the Constitution but are
inferred from the nature and character of our
government, such as the prohibitions against the
delegation of the power to make laws and the
passage of irrepealable laws;
b. Specific limitations on specific powers- They
are scattered in different parts of the
Constitution. Thus, on the power to tax,
the rule of taxation must be uniform and
equitable; on the power to appropriate,
public funds must not be appropriated to
religious purpose; on the power to declare
the existence of a state of war, the
concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of
Congress must be obtained, etc.; and
2. Formal- They refer to the procedural
requirements to be complied with by
Congress in the passage of bills and the
form and content of the same. Examples
of such limitations are found in Sec. 26
and 27(1)
Prohibition against delegation
of legislative powers
1. Rule founded on principle of separation of
powers- A branch or department of the
government may not delegate to another
department or to any other body the
powers entrusted to it by the Constitution.
Thus, Congress is prohibited from
delegating its legislative powers. In the
absence of this rule, the principle of
separation of powers can hardly exist.
2. Rule not absolute – The rule of non-
delegability of legislative power, however, is
not absolute. It does not apply:

a. where the delegation es expressly

authorized by the Constitution (see Secs.
23[2], 28[2] supra.); and

b. where the delegation is made to local

governments. (Art. XI, Sec. 5.) This exception
is logical for, after all, municipal corporations
are merely instrumentalities of the State for
the better administration of the government
in matters of local concern.
 Prohibition against the
enactment of irrepealable laws
1. Essence of legislative power.- Legislative power
is the authority to make laws as well as alter
and repeal them. The continuous making of
laws – new laws as well as those that amend,
alter, or repeal existing ones – is the very
essence of legislative power. The legislative
prerogative to pass laws cannot be curtailed;
otherwise, time may come when succeeding
legislative bodies will have nothing more to
do because the entire field of legislation has
been completely exhausted through the
enactment of permanent legislation.
2. Consequences to public welfare of irrepealable
laws permanent- Furthermore, injurious
consequences to the country would result
if legislation passed by the lawmaking body
assumes a permanent character. The policy
of the state would become fixed and
unchangeable on great national interest in
spite of changed conditions and times. Laws
enacted several decades ago for a
particular need may no longer be beneficial
today. If they cannot be replaced, they will
retard, if not destroy, the public welfare.
Requirements as to subject and
title of bills.
1. One title, one subject.- A proposed law is
called a bill. The Constitution requires
that every bill passed by Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof. (Sec. 26[1])
2. Purposes of constitutional requirement- They
are:

a. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling

legislation;

b. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the

legislature; and

c. To fairly apprise the people, through such

publications of legislative proceedings as is
usually made, of the subjects of legislation that
are being heard thereon by petition or
otherwise, if they shall so desire.
 Meaning of hodge-podge or
log-rolling legislation
Hodge –podge or log-rolling legislation (i.e.,
omnibus bill) refers to any measure
containing several subjects on unrelated
matters combined together for the purpose
of securing the support of members of the
legislature severally interested in the
different subject of the bills.
It these subjects were to be presented in
separate bills, the likelihood is that non of
them might obtain a majority vote.
 Effect of violation of requirement
The constitutional provision prohibits the passage of
2 classes of bills, to wit:

1. A bill containing provisions (riders) not fairly

embraced in its title or related to its subject matter
(see Sec. 25[2]); and
2. A bill which embodies different subjects
notwithstanding that all of them are expressed in its
title.

In the first case, the bill is valid except the

provisions not fairly embraced in the title.
In the second case, the whole act is void.
 Exceptions to the requirement
It does not apply to:
1. Local ordinances as they do not partake of the
nature of laws but are mere rules provided for
the fulfillment of laws; and
2. Proper codifications and revisions of statutes.
Thus, a law with the title “An Act to Ordain and
Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines” or
with the title “An Act Amending the Civil Code
of the Philippines” is valid although it may
contain hundreds of different matters, for the
very denomination “Code” is sufficient to put
the members of the legislature and the people
on their guard.
 Purpose of provision requiring
3 reading bills
The 3 readings of a bill must take place on
separate days – not in 1 day. (Sec. 26[2].) The
purpose is to prevent hasty and improvident
legislation and the railroading of bills, and to
compel the thorough and careful study of
proposed laws or, at least, the affording of the
opportunity for that purpose.

In the past, railroading of bills made possible the

adoption of voluminous measures without the
benefit of discussion and public information
because, oftentimes, the 3 readings were done``
in 1 single day.
Certification of bills by the
President
The Constitution provides that “no bill passed by
either House shall become a law unless it has
passed 3 readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final from have been
distributed to the members 3 days before its
passage.
The exception to the above requirement is “when
the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity
or emergency.” (Sec. 26[2]). With this provision, a
certification may be issued to a bill only to meet a
public calamity or emergency.
Purpose of requirement that yeas
and nays be entered in the journal.
It is also provided in the Constitution that on the
final passage of every bill, the “yeas and nays [shall be]
entered in the Journal.” (Sec. 26[2]) This means that
the roll of Congress shall be called and each member
present and answering to his name shall say “yea” or
“nay” (affirmative or negative vote) on the question of
the passage of the bill.

This provision is considered mandatory. It is intended

to fix upon each member the his action in legislation,
and also to furnish conclusive evidence whether the
bill has been passed by the requisite majority or not.
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, 2/3 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 2/3 of all Members of that House, it shall
become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall
be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the 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 30 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 traffic bill, but the
veto shall not affect the item or items to
which he does not object.
Meaning of bill.
A bill is a draft of a law submitted to
the consideration of a legislative
body for its adoptation.
 Meaning of statute.
A statute is the written will of the
legislature as an organized body
expressed according to the form
necessary to constitute it into law of the
state, and rendered authentic by certain
prescribed forms of solemnities.
 How statutes identifies.
Statutes passed by the former Congress are,
for purposes of formal reference,
denominated as acts. They are identified by
their serial numbers (e.g., R.A. No. 386).
Where a special title is supplied for a
particular statute (e.g., “Civil Code of the
Philippines”), such title may also be used for
identification.

Statutes enacted by the former Batasang

Pambansa are also identified by their serial
numbers (e.g., Batas Pambansa Bld. 25).
 Formal parts of law.
The formal parts of a statute (or bill) are the
following:
1. Title- It announces the subject matter of the
act. (see Sec. 27[1], supra.) Thus, Republic Act
NO. 286 has for its title. “An Act to Ordain
and Institute the Civil Code of the
Philippines.” Laws enacted by the former
Batasang Pambansa Blg. 25 gives as its title
“An Act Regulating Rentals of Dwelling
Units or of Land on which Another’s
Dwelling is Located and for Other
Purposes”;
2. Preamble- It follows the title and
precedes the enacting clause. It is a
sort of introduction or preface of a
law. The purpose of the preamble is
to explain the reasons for the
enactment of a law and the objects
sought to be attained. It is not
considered part of the substance of
the law, The Constitution does not
contain any specific provision
requiring the use of a preamble in
any legislative enactment;
3. Enacting clause- It immediately precedes
the boy of the statute and it serves as a
formal means of identifying the
legislative body that enacts the law,
Republic Act. No. 386 has for its
enacting clause, “Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of Representatives
of the Philippines in Congress
Assembled.” In the case of the Batasang
Pambansa, the enactment clause is as
follows: “Be it enacted by the Batasang
Pambansa, in session assembled.” The
Constitution does not also require the
use of an enacting clause in bills
enacted into law;
4. Body- It is that portion containing the
proposed law or statute itself; and

5. Effective clause- It is that portion

providing for the time when the law
shall take effect. A law takes effect 15
days following the completion of its
publication of the Philippine
government or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided, e.g., a
date is fixed for its effectivity.
 Steps in the passage of a bill
1. First Reading- Any member of either
House may present a proposed bill (see
Sec. 24), signed by him, for First Reading
and reference to the proper committee.
The bill is filed with the Office of the
Secretary where it is given a
corresponding number and calendared
for first reading. During the first reading,
the principal author of the bill may
propose the inclusion of additional
authors thereof. The bill is read by its
number and title and the name/names of
the author or authors;
2. Referral to appropriate committee-
Immediately after the First Reading; the
bill is referred to the proper committee
or committees for study and
consideration. It may conduct hearings
and consultation meetings. It then
approves the bill with or without
amendments or recommends
substitution or consolidation with similar
bills filed. If disapproved in the
committee, the bill dies a natural death
unless the House decides otherwise
following the submission of the report;
3. Second Readings- If the committee
reports the bill favorably, the bill is
forwarded to he Committee on Rules
so that it can be calendared for
deliberation on Second Reading, At
this state, the bill is read for the
second time in its entirety together
with the amendments, if any, proposed
by the committee unless the reading is
dispensed with by a majority vote of
the House;
4. Debates- A general debate is then
opened after the Second Reading and
sponsorship speech of the author of
the bill. Amendments may be proposed
by any member of Congress. The
insertion of changes or amendments
shall be done in accordance with the
rules of either House. The House may
either “kill” or pass the bill. A bill
approved on Second Reading shall be
included in the calendar of bills for
Third Reading;
5. Printing and distribution- After approval
of the bill on Second Reading, the bill
is then ordered printed in its final
form or version and copies of it are
distributed among the members of the
House 3 days before its passage
except I case of bills certified by the
President (Sec. 26[2]);
6. Third Reading- At this stage, only the
title of the bill is read on the floor:
Nominal voting is held. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment
thereto is allowed and the vote
thereon is taken immediately
thereafter, and yeas and nays entered in
the journal. (Ibid.; see Sec. 16[4].) A
member may abstain. As a rule, a
majority of the members constituting
a quorum is sufficient to pass a bill;
7. Referral to the other House- If approved,
the bill is then referred to the other
House where substantially the same
procedure takes place. If the other
House approved the bill without
changes or amendments, the final
version is signed by the Senate
President and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
8. Submission to joint bicameral committee-
Differences, if any, between the
House’s bill and the Senate’s amended
version, and vice versa are submitted to
a conference committee of members
of both Houses for compromise or to
reconcile conflicting provisions. If
either House accepts the changes
made by the other, no compromise is
necessary; and
9. Submission to the President- A bill approved on
Third Reading by both Houses shall be
printed and forthwith transmitted to the
President for his action – approval or
disapproval that is, he either signs it into law
or vetoes and sends it back with his veto
message. If the President does not
communicate his veto of any bill to the
House where it originated within 30 days
from receipt thereof, it shall become a law as
if he signed it. Bills re-passed by Congress
over the veto of the President automatically
becomes a law. (Sec. 27[1])
When bill may become a law.
Section 27(1) describes the steps a bill has to go
through before it becomes a law. A bill passed by
Congress may become a law in any of the
following ways:

1. When the President approves the bill by signing

it;
2. When he vetoes the bill and returns the same
with his objections to the House where it
originated, and the same is re-passed over his
veto by a vote of 2/3 of all the members (not
merely 2/3 of all the members present
constituting a quorum) of both Houses; and
3. If the President does not communicate his
veto of any bill to the House where it
originated within 30 days after the date of
receipt thereof, in which case it shall
become a law as if he had signed it. (Sec.
27[1].)

Only a simple majority of Congress is

required in enacting ordinary laws. (see Sec.
16[2], 23, 28[4]; Art. VII, Sec. 21.)

The signature of the President is not

necessary to enact a law when the people
by virtue of their reserved powers directly
participate in the legislative process by
initiative and referendum. (Sec. 32.)
 Veto power of the President.
The word veto is the Latin term for “I
forbid” or “deny”. It is the power vested
in the President to disapprove acts passed
by Congress. The veto message to the
House where the bill originated explains
his objections to the bill. (Sec. 27[1])
 Purpose of veto.
Two fundamental reasons have been given to the
grant of the veto power to the President, to wit:

1. To enable the executive department to protect

its integrity as an equal branch of the
government and thus maintain an equilibrium of
governmental powers. It strengthens the role of
the President in the enactment of appropriation
laws (see Sec. 24.); and
2. To provide a check on hasty, corrupt, or ill-
considered legislation.
Pocket veto not allowed.
Under the Constitution, the President does not
have the so-called pocket veto power, i.e.,
disapproval of a bill by inaction on his part. The
failure of the President to communicate his veto
of any bill presented to him within 30 days after
the date of receipt thereof automatically causes
the bill to become a law. (Sec. 27[1].)

The rule corrects the Presidential practice under

the 1935 Constitution of releasing veto messages
long after he should have acted o the bill. It also
avoids uncertainty as to what new laws are in
force.
 When partial veto allowed.
As a general rule, the President may not veto
a bill in part and approve it in part. The
exception is provided in paragraph (2) of
Section 27 which grants the President the
power to veto any particular item or items
in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill.
(see Sec. 25.)

1. The veto in such case shall not affect the

item or items to which he does not object.
2. This line-veto power allows the President
to veto any item (e.g., a project, budget
provision) which the President finds
inconsistent with the Constitution or
existing laws and budget priorities. In a real
sense, the power strengthen the hands of
the President in the control of the budget
process.
3. Without the exception, the entire
appropriation or revenue measure would
be nullified simply because the President
disapproves even one particular item
therein, and this might adversely affect the
operations of the government if no funds
are available or taxes cannot be collected.
4. The item or items vetoed may be re-
passed over the veto of the President
in the same manner as ordinary bills.
The vetoed items shall simply be not
given effect.
 Meaning of Resolution.
Enactments of the lawmaking body may
also be made in the form of resolutions. A
resolution has been defined as a formal
expression of opinion, will, or intent by an
official body or assembled group.
 Use of resolutions.
1. Resolutions are employed with respect
to matters within the exclusive authority
of the lawmaking body and do not,
therefore, require the approval of the
President for their effectivity. Thus, the
rules of procedure of a lawmaking body,
orders imposing some penalty upon ay
of its members, or proposals for
constitutional amendments would be
embodied in resolutions.
2. They are also used when a lawmaking
body expresses an attitude or
opinion. Thus, resolutions would be
proper in expressing condolences on
the death of a member or of a high
government official, or in declaring its
opinion on important national
questions.
3. Under Section 28(2) (supra), the
power to fix tariff rates, etc.,
delegated to the President may be
withdrawn by the lawmaking body by
means or resolution.
 Kinds of resolutions.
A resolution may be:
1. simple, if passed by either House for its
exclusive use or purpose;
2. Concurrent, if passed independently in one House
and ratified by the other in the same manner as
a bill; and
3. Joint, if approved by both Houses meeting in
joint session but voting separately (e.g., one
proposing amendments to the Constitution).

There is no provision in the Constitution

requiring the approval by the President of
any kind of resolution.
 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 wharf
age dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development
program of the Government.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and
parsonages 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.
 Uniformity in taxation.
1. Meaning – Uniformity in taxation means
that “all taxable articles or properties of
the same class shall be taxed at the
same rate.” Different articles (or other
subjects, like transactions, business,
rights, etc.,) may, therefore, be taxed at
different rates or amounts provided that
the rate (not necessarily the amount) is
the same on the same class everywhere.
2. Illustrations. – Uniformity implies equality
in burden, not equality in amount. Thus:

a) A tax of P2.00 per square meter or

fraction thereof imposed on every
billboard or sign anywhere in the
country was held valid as against the
contention that it was void for lack of
uniformity.
b) There is no violation where those
with different incomes are made to pay
different rates of tax because in this
case, the incomes are considered as
belonging to different classes.
c) All residential houses, regardless of
their assessed value, may be considered
for purposes of taxation as belonging to
1 class(i.e., residential property) and
made subject to the same tax rate (e.g.,
2.5% of assessed value) but different
amounts of tax depending on their
value. The law, however, may validly
further classify such property according
to their assessed value and levy
different rates, and consequently,
different amounts of tax on the basis of
such value.
3. Reason for rule- The reason for the
rule of uniformity in taxation is that
not all persons, properties, or
transactions are identical or similarly
situated. The classification of the
subjects of taxation must be based on
reasonable and substantial grounds. An
arbitrary classification will offend the
guarantee of “equal protection of the
laws.” (see Art. III, Sec. 1, supra.)
 Equity in taxation.
Aside from the requirement that the rule of
taxation shall be uniform, the Constitution
also mandates that it shall be equitable. (Sec.
28[1].) Uniformity in taxation is effected
through the apportionment of the tax
burden among the taxpayers which under
the Constitution must be equitable. To be
sure, a tax law may prescribe a uniform rule
of taxation and yet it may be inequitable as
where the rates of tax are excessive or
confiscatory.
The concept of equity in taxation
requires that such apportionment be
more or less just in the light of the
taxpayer’s ability to shoulder the tax
burden (usually measured in terms of
the size of wealth or property and
income, gross or net) and if warranted
(in certain cases, like the tax on
gasoline), on the basis of the benefits
he receives from the government.
Progressive/regressive system
of taxation
To achieve the equity objective in taxation, the
Constitution enjoins Congress to “evolve a
progressive system of taxation.” (e.g., income, donor’s,
and estate taxes) rather than on indirect taxes (e.g.,
customs duties and value-added taxes which the
taxpayer can recover from the costumer by adding
the same to the price ), with ability to pay as the main
criterion. Conversely, a system where the greater
bulk of national tax collections come from indirect
taxes is called “regressive”

The individual income tax provides the best example

of a direct and progressive tax. The rate of the tax
increases as the tax base or bracket (amount of
income) increases.
 Delegation of taxing power to
fix tariff rates, etc.
By express provision of the Constitution,
Congress is authorized to delegate to the
President its power to fix within specified
limits tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharf rage dues, and other
duties or imposts. The authority so granted
is, however, subject to such limitations and
restrictions as the Congress may seem wise
to impose because Congress is prohibited
from abdicating its lawmaking power over
the subjects mentioned.
For instance, the delegation of power must
specify the minimum as well as the maximum
tariffs. Furthermore, the authority given to
the President must be exercised within the
framework of the national development
program of the government. (Sec. 28[2].)

The above is another exception to the rule

against the delegation of legislative power.
(see Sec. 23[2].)
Exemption of certain entities and
properties from property taxes.
Section 28(3) provides that the
institutions and properties mentioned
therein shall be exempt from taxation.
Other exemptions are provided are
provided by statutes, but in those cases,
they may be withdrawn.
 1. Test of exemption. –
 The exemption covers only property taxes and
not other taxes. The test of the exemption is the
use of the property and not ownership. Thus, a
property leased by the owner to another who
uses it, “actually, directly, and exclusively” for
religious, charitable or educational purpose is
exempt from property tax but the owner is
subject to income tax, even if the income is used
or devoted by him or another for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes.
Note that with respect to cemeteries, only those
which are non-profit are exempt from taxation.
2. Exemption of religious, charitable,
and educational institutions. –
 All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions used actually, directly, and
exclusively for educational purposes are exempt
from property and income taxes and customs
duties. Proprietary educational institutions
including those cooperatively-owned may likewise
be entitled to such exemptions subject to such
limitations provided by law, including restrictions
on dividends and provisions for investments.
 Grants and donations used actually, directly, and
exclusively for educational purposes are also
exempt from tax subject to conditions prescribed
by law. (At. XIV, Sec. 4[3, 4].)
VOTES REQUIRED FOR GRANT
OF TAX EXEMPTION.
◦ The Constitution requires the
concurrence of a majority of all the
members of Congress to pass a law
granting any tax exemption. (Sec. 28[4].)
as a safeguard against the indiscriminate
grant of tax exemptions. Under the
1935 Constitution, a simple majority of
the quorum was sufficient.
 SECTION 29
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law.

2. No public money or property shall be

appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or any
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a
special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. It
the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the
balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government.
THE POWER OF APPROPRIATION.
The power to appropriate public funds for
the maintenance of the government and
other public needs is a vital government
function which is vested in Congress. Section
29(1) is based upon the principle that the
people’s money may be spent only with their
consent. That consent may be expressed
wither in the Constitution itself or in valid
acts of Congress as the direct representative
of the people. It acts as a legislative check
upon the disbursing power of the President,
or the heads of departments and other
executive officials. Without the restriction,
government funds would be misused.
In case a special election for President and
Vice-President, is called by Congress, the
appropriations for the same shall be
charged against any current appropriations
and shall be exempt from the requirement
of Section 29(1). (see Art.VII, Sec. 10)
Prohibition against use of public money
or property for religious purpose.
It is fundamental in democratic
governments that taxes may be levied for
public purposes only. Since, the
government is established for a public
purpose, public money can be used only
for the purpose. A tax levied for a private
purpose constitutes a taking of property
without due process of law, and is invalid.
(Art. III, Sec. 1., supra.)
The prohibition in Section 29(2) is based on
the requirement that taxes can only be
imposed for a public purpose. Thus, a public
land may not be denoted for the
construction of churches, convents or
seminaries, It is consonant with the
principle of the separation of the church
and the State as enunciated in Section 6 of
Article II.
The prohibition, however, is not
violated when:
1. Payment given as compensation. – Where
the use of public money is not for the
benefit of the priest, etc., as such but is
in the nature of compensation to the
priest, etc., who is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium
(Sec. 29[2]);
2. Religious use incidental. – Where the use
of public property for religious purposes
is incidental and temporary, and is
compatible with the use to which other
members of the community are entitled,
or may be authorized to make. Hence,
the use of public streets for religious
processions and holding of masses at the
Rizal Park and in other public property
does not offend the provision.
Similarly, the payment as retirement,
death, or disability benefits to a priest of
funds contributed to the Social Security
System does not violate Section 29(2) of
the Constitution where such payment is
made to the priest not because he is a
priest but because he is an employee;
3. Use, public in nature. –
Where, for example, public funds are
used for postage stamps
commemorating the celebration in
Manila of the 33rd International
Eucharistic Congress organized by the
Roman Catholic Church and the
purpose is to advertise the Philippines
and not to favor any particular church
or denominations;
4. Payment based on contract. –
Where, for example, rents are paid for a
portion of a church or other building
belonging to a sectarian institution
leased by the government for school or
other public purposes since the public
receives the full benefit of its contract;
and
5. Consideration received. –
Where, for example, free supply of water is
given by a municipality to a religious
organization not on account of any
religious consideration but in exchange for
a donation of property made to the former
by the latter.
In short, it is the appropriation of public
money or property mainly for religious
purpose that the Constitution does not
sanction. (see Art. III, Sec. 5; Art. II, Sec. 6.)
 Expenditure of special fund.
A tax may be imposed for a special public
purpose. In such case, the money raised
from such tax shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. It
cannot be spent for any other public
purpose. If the special purpose has been
fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any,
shall be transferred to the general funds of
the government. (Sec. 29[3].) The special
fund then ceases to exist.
 SECTION 30
No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
Law of increasing jurisdiction of
Supreme Court.
Congress cannot diminish or otherwise
impair (reduce) the original and appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (see
Art.VIII, Sec. 2, par. 1.) as enumerated in
Article VIII, Sec. 5(2). But Congress can
increase its jurisdiction by assigning to it
additional cases for adjudication.
1. Appellate jurisdiction. –
A it is, the Supreme Court is already burdened with
a heavy load of cases. If its appellate jurisdiction
is further increased, the Supreme Court could
never reduce much less eliminate the backlog in
its docket. Furthermore, by the very nature of
its work as a court of last resort with
administrative supervision over all lower courts
(Art. VIII, Sec. 6.), it is in a better position to be
determine what cases should be elevated to it
for review. Hence, any law increasing its
appellate jurisdiction must be with its advice
and concurrence.
 2. Original jurisdiction. –
It is not necessary to make a prohibition in
connection with its original jurisdiction
because the Supreme Court is essentially
an appellate court with jurisdiction over
judgments and orders of all lower courts in
specified cases, and increasing its original
jurisdiction to include cases other than
those mentioned in the Constitution (see
Art.VIII, Sec. 5[1]), will force it to conduct
hearings and trials and thus make
impossible the performance of its
constitutional powers and functions.
SECTION 31

No law granting a title of royalty

or nobility shall be enacted.
 Prohibition against granting
title of royalty or nobility.
1. Equalitarian principle observed in a democratic
society. – Under the above constitutional
provision, the system existing in some countries,
like England and Japan, ranking certain persons
as belonging to an upper class called the
“nobility” is not allowed in the Philippines. The
reason behind the principle is the egalitarian
principle underlying our Constitution. It is
consistent with the declaration that the
Philippines is a republican and democratic State
(Art. II, Sec. 1.) as opposed to a monarchial or
aristocratic form of government.
2. Prevents creation of a privileged class. –
“The prohibition of titles of nobility
may truly be denominated the
cornerstone of republican
government; for so long as they are
excluded, there can never be serious
danger that the government will be
any other than of the people.” It
prevents the creation of a privileged
class which may transmit their
classification by inheritance to their
children.
3. Prohibition directed at Congress. – The
prohibition of titles of royalty or
nobility is directed to Congress. Thus,
the Sultan of Sulu can validly create
titles of royalty or nobility and confer
them on visiting dignitaries from
Congress or on members of the
Cabinet.
SECTION 32
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide
for a system of initiative and referendum, and
the exemptions there from, 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.
Meaning of initiative and
referendum.
1. Initiative – It is the reserved power of
the people to directly propose and
enact laws at polls called for the
purpose independently of Congress or
of a local legislative body.
2. Referendum – It is the process by
which any act or law or part thereof
passed by Congress or by a local
legislative body is submitted to the
people for their approval or disapproval.
Congress to provide a system
of initiative and referendum.
The Constitution on Section 32 has
institutionalized what is now internationally
known as “people’s power”, which was
manifested with unprecedented popular
support during and after the 1986
presidential “snap” election and in the
“EDSA revolution.” It mandates Congress
to provide, as early as possible, for a
system of initiative and referendum, and
the exceptions thereform.
The condition for the exercise of these
reserved powers is the registration
of a petition therefor signed by at
least 10% of the total number of
registered voters with every
legislative district being represented
by at least 3% of the registered
voters in said district. Other details
for its implementation are to be
determined by law to be enacted by
Congress.
Under Article XVII, Section 2,
amendments (not revision) to the
Constitution may be directly
proposed by the people through
initiative.
Reserve legislative power of the
people.
The incorporation in the Constitution of
the devices of initiative and referendum for
proposing legislation or constitutional
amendments, or subjecting acts of
Congress or a local legislative body for
approval or rejection gives substance to
the time-honored principle that in a
republican and democratic State
“sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from
them”. (Art. II, Sec.1.)
Through these processes, aside from
elections, plebiscites, and recalls, the
people are able to articulate what they
feel about certain political, social and
economic issues confronting the
country and, in the exercise of the
ultimate, reserve power of sovereignty
given them, resort to direct action to
compel obedience of the government
to their own demands, short of waging
a revolution against it.
Out government, however, remains
essentially a republican democracy.
(see Art. II, Sec. 1.)
 ARTICLE VII
(EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT)
SECTION 1

The executive power shall be vested

in the President of the Philippines.
President, the Executive.
Following the 1935 Charter, Section
1 vests the executive power in one
person alone – the President of the
Philippines. It is, therefore, accurate
to refer to him as the Executive, not
merely Chief Executive. The
President in a Presidential system of
government is, however, referred to
also as the Chief Executive.
Under both the 1935 Constitution
and the present Constitution, the
President is both the head and the
head of the government. Unlike the
Prime Minister under the 1973
Constitution (as amended), the
President is not a legislative leader
with membership in Congress. He
is purely an executive.
Meaning of executive power.
Executive power has been defined as the
power to administer the laws, which
means carrying them into practical
operation and enforcing their due
observance.
The “laws” include the Constitution,
statutes enacted by Congress, decrees
(issued under the 1973 Constitution),
and executive orders of the President,
and decisions of courts.
 SECTION 2
No person may be elected President
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, a registered voter. Able to
read and write, at least 4o ears of age on
the day of the lection, and a resident of
the Philippines for at least 10 years
immediately preceding such election.
Assuming that Fernando Poe, Jr. was
am illegitimate child of an American
mother and a Filipino father, would he
be a natural born Filipino citizen?

Yes. Provided paternity is clearly proved,

an illegitimate child of a Filipino father is a
natural born Filipino citizen. Tecson v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
What is the significance of
being “Head of state”?
What Clinton Rossiter said about the
American President in The American
Presidency can be said about the Philippine
President:
He remains today, as he has always been, the ceremonial
head of the government of the United States, and he
must take part with real or apparent enthusiasm in a
range of activities that would keep him running and
posing from sunrise to bedtime if he were not
protected by a cold-blooded staff. Some of these
activities are solemn or even priestly in
In whom is executive power
vested?
In the President, who is both “Head of
State” and “Chief Executive”
Nature; others, through no fault of his own, are
flirtations with vulgarity. The long catalogue of public
duties that the Queen discharges in England, the
President of the Republic in France, and the Governor-
General in Canada, is the President’s responsibility in
this country. And the Catalogue is even longer because
he is not a king, or even the agent of one, and is
therefore expected to go through some rather
undignified paces by a people who think or him as a
combination of scoutmaster, Delphic oracle, hero of
the silver screen, and father of the multitudes.
What is the significance of
being “Chief Executive”?
This means that he is the executive and no
one else is. In the language of Villena v.
Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451, 464 (1939),
the President is “the Executive of the
Government of the Philippines, and no other.
The heads of the executive departments
occupy political positions and hold office in
an advisory capacity, and, in the language of
Thomas Jefferson ‘should be of the
President’s bosom confidence,’ and, in the
language of Attorney General Cushing,
‘are subject to the direction of the
President.
Absent a statute authorizing the President to
ban the return of Mr. Marcos, does he have the
power to impose the ban?
The Constitution says that executive
power shall be vested in the President. It
also enumerates certain specific powers.
The enumeration, however, does not
exhaust the totality of executive powers.
Tradition recognizes that the powers of
the President are more than the sum of
enumerated executive powers. The duty
of government “to serve and protect the
people” as well as to se to the
“maintenance of peace and order,
the protection of life, liberty, and property,
and the promotion of the general welfare”
argue towards the existence of “residual
unstated powers.” Marcos v. Manglapus, et.
Al., G>R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989.
(The decision was 8-7. “This case is unique.
It should not create a precedent, for the
case of a dictator forced out of office and
into exile after causing 20 years of political,
economic and social havoc in the country
and who within the short space of 3 years
seeks to return, is in a class by itself).”
NOTE:
On reconsideration the Court added: “The
powers of the President are not limited to what
are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered
provisions of the Constitution. This is so,
notwithstanding the avowed intent of the
members of the Constitutional Commission of
1986 to limit the powers of the President as a
reaction to the abuses under the regime of Mr.
Marcos, for the result was a limitation of specific
powers of the President, particularly those
relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but
not a diminution of the general grant of executive
power.” October 27, 1989.
Besides, what the Court calls residual
powers also come under the duty of the
President to ensure that laws are
faithfully executed. See Article VII,
Section 17.
May the President dispose of
state property?
The President may not convey valuable
real property of the government on his or
her own sole will. Conveyance must be
authorized by a law enacted by Congress.
Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
What is executive privilege?
In simplest terms, it is the power of the
President to withhold certain types of
information from the courts, the
Congress, and ultimately the public. The
teaching on executive privilege may be
culled from Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No.
169777, April 20, 2006. and Neri v. Senate,
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008;
September 4, 2008.
What types of information are
covered executive privilege?
The types of information include those
which are of a nature that disclosure
would subvert military or diplomatic
objectives, or information about the
identity of persons who furnish
information of violations of law, or
information about internal deliberations
comprising the process by which
government decisions are reached.
 Section 2(a) of E.O. 464, upheld as valid
by the Supreme Court in Ermita,
enumerated the following as privileged.
These are taken from earlier decisions:
1. Conversations and correspondence
between the President and the public
official covered by this executive order.
2. Military, diplomatic and other national
security matters which in the interest
of national security should not be
privileges;
3. Information between inter-government
agencies prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements
4. Discussion in close-door Cabinet
meetings;
5. Matters affecting national security and
public order.
Ermita said, “Executive privilege, as already
discussed, is recognized with respect to
information the confidential nature of which is
crucial to the fulfillment of the unique role and
responsibilities of the executive branch, or in
those instances where exemption from
disclosure is necessary to the discharge of
highly important executive responsibilities. The
doctrine of executive privilege is thus premised
on the fact that certain information must, as a
matter of necessity, be kept confidential in
pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being,
by definition, an exemption from the obligation
to disclose information, the necessity must be of
such high degree as to outweigh the public
interest in enforcing that obligation in a
particular case.”
Put differently, the Court said that a claim of
privilege may be valid or not “depending on the
ground invoked to justify it and the context in
which it is claimed. For in determining the
validity of a claim of privilege, the question that
must be asked is not only whether the
requested information falls within one of the
traditional privileges, but also whether that
privilege should be honored in a giver
procedural setting.” From this the Court
concluded that it is not for one claiming
executive privilege “to unilaterally determine
that respondents’ duly-issued Subpoena should
be totally disregarded.”
How does executive privilege relate with
the power of compulsory process of
Congress?
“While the executive branch is co-equal
branch of the legislature, it cannot
frustrate the power of Congress to
legislate by refusing to comply with its
demands for information . . . Only one
executive official may be exempted from
this power – the President.”
How must the claim of
executive privilege be stated?
Another point which the Court emphasized
Ermita was that a claim of privilege must be
stated with sufficient particularly to enable
Congress or the court to determine its
legitimacy. “Absent then a statement of the
specific basis of a claim of executive privilege,
there is no way of determining whether it
falls under one of the traditional privileges,
or whether, given the circumstances in which
it is made, it should be respected.” the lack
of specificity renders the assessment
of the potential harm resulting from
disclosure impossible, However,
Congress must not require the
executive to state the reasons for the
claim with such particularity as to
compel disclosure of the information
which the privilege is meant to protect.
 What can be learned from
Neri v. Senate?
Senate v. Ermita was followed by Neri v.
Senate. In a Senate hearing involving a
contract with a Chinese firm, Neri in his
capacity as Chairman of NEZ was asked
three questions: (a) Whether the President
followed up the (NBN) project ; (b)
Whether the President directed him to
prioritize the ZTE? (c) Whether the
President said to go ahead and approve the
project after being told about the alleged
bribe? Neri claimed executive privilege.
The type of executive privilege claimed
here was “presidential communication
privilege.” Presidential communication is
presumptively privileged; but the
presumption is subject to rebuttal. Thus,
whoever challenges it, must show good and
valid reasons related to the public welfare.
The Court ruled that the Senate failed to
controvert the presumption. Neri v. Senate
held that communications between the
President and “operationally proximate”
advisers are presumed to be privileged and
one challenging it must show cause why it
should not be considered so. But these
musts be limited to communications with
the President. Moreover, the decision
itself, once reached, unless it is about
confidential military or diplomatic
matters, can become a matter of public
concern. Certainly, for instance, if a
decision reached is criminal, it cannot
be privileged.
Could the Court have asked for an in
camera session for Neri to explain his claim
within the hearing of the Court alone?
Such a procedure, followed by American practice,
could have enabled the Court to sift what was
privileged and what was not and then to allow the
revelation of what was not privileged. But the
Court did not use the procedure, and relied
instead on presumption. Thus the Chief Justice
commented that executive privilege was
established by guesswork.
The decision, if applied to criminal cases, has the
dangerous effect of blocking discovery of
wrongdoing by mere claim of presumptive
privilege.
Note:
A lesser anomaly in the decision is its
rejection of the manner in which the
Senate approved its show cause order to
Secretary Neri. The Senate approved the
order through the collection of a sufficient
number of signatures and not in a meeting.
The Court fount this to be an invalid
procedure. But is it for the Court to tell
the Senate what its voting procedure
should be? A our own Court said in 1960,
“Courts have declared that the ‘rules
adopted by deliberative bodies are subject
to revocation, modification or waiver at
the pleasure of the body adopting the,. ‘
And it has been said that ‘Parliamentary
rules are merely procedural, and
with their observance, the courts have
no concern. They may be waived or
disregarded by the legislative body.’”
Provided, of course, private rights are
not violated.

The Court too does modify or even

dispense with its own rules. What is
good for the goose should be good for
the gander.
Is the President immune from
suit?
Although the new Constitution has not
reproduced the explicit guarantee of
presidential immunity during tenure remains
as part of the law. What has been rejected
by the new Constitution is the expansive
notion of immunity in the Marcos
Constitution. Once out of office, however,
even before the end if the 6 year term.
Immunity for non-official acts is lost. Such
was the case of Joseph Estrada. The cases
filed against him were criminal in character.
They involved plunder, bribery and
graft and corruption.
By no stretch of the imagination could
these crimes, especially plunder, which
carried the death penalty, be covered
by a mantle of immunity for a non-
sitting president. The rule is that
unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of the State and the officer who
acts illegally is not acting as such but
stands in the same footing as any other
trespasser. Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos.
14671015, March 2, 2001.
Petitioner Beltran argues that “the reasons
which necessitate Presidential immunity from
suit impose a correlative disability to file suit.”
He contends that if criminal proceedings ensue
by virtue of the President’s filing of her
complaint-affidavit, she may be bringing herself
under the trial court’s jurisdiction.This,
continues Beltran, would in an indirect way
defeat her privilege of immunity from suit. As
to testifying on the witness stand, she would be
exposing herself to possible contempt of court
or perjury. Does the incumbent President’s
immunity from suit prevent her from suing?
The rationale for the grant to the
President of the privilege of immunity from
suit is to assure the exercise of presidential
duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction considering that
being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from
requiring all of the office-holder’s time, also
demands undivided attention. But this
privilege of immunity from suit pertains to
the President by virtue of the office and
may be invoked only by the holder of the
office, not by any other person in the
President’s behalf.
Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which
the President is complainant cannot raise
the presidential privilege as a defense to
prevent the case from proceeding against
such accused. Moreover, there is nothing in
our laws that would prevent the President
from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so
minded, the President may shed the
protection afforded by the privilege and
submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The
choice of whether to exercise the privilege
or to waive it is hers. Soliven v. Judge
Makasiar, Beltran v. Maksiar, G.R. No. 8287,
November 14, 1988.
 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.
What is the function of the
Vice-President?
His only constitutional function is to be
on hand to act as President when needed
or to succeed to be presidency in case of
a permanent vacancy in the office. The
President may also appoint him as a
Member of the Cabinet. Such
appointment does not need the consent
of the Commission on Appointments.
 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 30th day of June next following the day of
the election and shall end at the same 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 2 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
30 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 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 and Vice-President, or the Acting
President shall take the following oath or
affirmation.
How are the President and
Vice-President elected?

By direct vote of the People as specified

in Section 4.
May Congress delegate the
preliminary count of votes in a
presidential election to a joint
Committee?
Yes, provided that the Committee report
be submitted for approval by the
Congress as a body. Lopez v. Senate and
House, G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004.
Who has the authority to
canvass the votes and proclaim
the winner?
Congress. The proclamation of
presidential and vice-presidential winners
is a function of Congress and not of the
Comelec. Macalintal v. Comelec, G.R. No.
157013, July 10, 2003.
In canvassing the votes, can Congress
look into the authenticity and due
execution of the certificates of canvass,
or is its function merely ministerial?
The function of Congress is not merely
ministerial. It has authority to examine
the certificates of canvass for authenticity
and due execution. For this purpose,
Congress must pass a law governing their
canvassing functions.
May Congress continue the
canvass even after the final
adjournment of is sessions?
Yes. The final adjournment of Congress
does not terminate an unfinished
presidential canvass. Adjournment
terminates legislation but not the non-
legislative functions of Congress such as
canvassing of votes. Pimentel v. Joint
Canvassing Committee, June 22, 2004.
In the event of a contest “relating to
the election, returns and
qualifications of the President or
Vice-President,” who shall be judge?

The Supreme Court.

Macalintal challenges the creation
of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal as unconstitutional.
The Presidential Electoral Tribunal is no
other than the Supreme Court itself. The
new provision in the 1987 Constitution
simply constitutionalizes the decision of
the Supreme Court in Lopez v. Roxas, 17
SCRA at 761. Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No.
191618, November 23, 2010
Can Susan Roces, widow of Fernando
Poe, Jr. intervene and/or substitute for
him, assuming arguendo that the protest
could survive his death.
No. The fundamental rule applicable in a
presidential election protest is Rule 14 of
the PET Rules. It provides,
Rule 14. Election Protest. – Only the
registered candidate for President or for
Vice-President of the Philippines who
received the second or third highest number
of votes may contest the election of the
President or the Vice-President, as
the case may be, by filing a verified
petition with the Clerk of the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal within 30
days after the proclamation of the
winner.
Pursuant to this rule, only two persons,
the 2nd and 3rd placers, may contest the
election. By this express enumeration,
the rule makers have in effect
determined the real parties in interest
concerning an on-going election contest.
Fernando Poe, Jr., v. Arroyo, P.E.T. CASE No.
002, March 29,2005.
Protestee de Castro contends that the
Tribunal cannot correct the manifest
errors on the statements of votes (SOV)
and certificates of canvass (COC).
Decide.
The validity, authenticity and correctness of the
SOV and COC’s are under the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction. The constitutional functions as well as
the power and the duty to be sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and
qualification of the President and Vice-President is
expressly vested in the PET, in Section 4, Article
VII of the Constitution. Included therein is the
duty to correct manifest errors in the SOVs and
COCs. Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. CASE No. 003,
March 31, 2005.
After Fidel Ramos was declared elected President,
defeated candidate Miriam Defensor Santiago filed
an election protest with the Supreme Court,
Subsequently, however, while the case was pending,
she ran for the office of the Senator and, having
been declared elected, assumed office as Senator,.
What happens to her election protest?

With he election and assumption of office as

Senator she is deemed to have abandoned
her protest. A senator’s term is six years. It is
a public trust. She has made a pact with the
people that she would serve for 6 years.
Defensor-Santiagio v. Fidel Ramos, P.E.T. Case
No. 001, February 13, 1996. See dissent.
What are the terms of the
President and the Vice-President?
May they be re-elected?
Both the President and the Vice-President are
elected for a term of 6 years which begins at
noon on the 30th day of June next following the
day of the election.
“The President shall not be eligible for any
reelection”
“No Vice-President shall serve for more that 2
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 term for which
he was elected”
If a Vice-President succeeds to be
presidency, may he run for President at
the end of the term to which he
succeeded as President?
“No person who has succeeded as
President and has served as such for
more than 4 years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.”
 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 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
source.
What will be the initial salary of the
President and of the Vice-President under
this Constitution?

See Article XVIII, Section 17.

SECTION 7
The President-elect and the Vice-President-elect
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 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.
What different vacancy situations are
contemplated in Section 7?
In general, Section 7 deals with vacancy
situations which exist at the beginning of the
term of the presidency.
The first two situations are (1) when a
President has been chosen but he fails to
qualify at the beginning of his term, and (2)
when no President has yet been chosen at
the time he is supposed to assume office. In
both cases the Vice-President becomes
acting-President until a President qualifies.
The third situation is (3) when the
President-elect dies or is permanently
incapacitated before the beginning of his
term. In this case, the Vice0President-elect
becomes President.
The fourth and fifth situation are (4) when
both the President and Vice-President have
not yet been chosen or have failed to
qualify, and (5) when both shall have died
or become permanently incapacitated at
the start of their term. In such situation,
the Senate President or the Speaker – in
that order – acts as President until a
President or Vice-President qualifies.
The sixth situation is (6) when the
officials mentioned in situation (4) and
(5) shall have died, or shall have become
permanently incapacitated, or are unable
to assume office. In such situation,
Congress will decide by law who will
act as President until a President or
Vice-President shall have been elected
and qualified.
 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 the 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.
What vacancy situations are
contemplated in Section 8?
The vacancy situations described here
occur after the office has been initially
filled.
The first situation is (1) when the
incumbent President dies, or is
permanently disabled, is removed, or
resigns. The vacancy created is thus
permanent. In this situation the Vice-
President becomes the President.
The second situation is (2) when both the
President and the Vice-President die, or are
permanently disabled, are removed, or
resign. In such case, the Senate President of
the Speaker – in that order – shall act as
President until a President or Vice-
President shall have elected and qualifies.
The third situation is (3) when the Acting
President dies, or is permanently
incapacitated, is removed, or resigns. For
such situation, Congress will determine by
law who will act as President until a new
President or Vice-President shall qualified.
How can the assumption of the presidency
by Vice-President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo?
In a divided opinion the Supreme Court held
that Joseph Estrada had resigned thereby
leaving the office vacant. The judgment that
Estrada had resigned was based on two
statements of Estrada just before he left
Malacaňang and on the Diary of Angara
published in the Inquirer. Estrada v. Arroyo,
G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001; G.R. No.
146738, April 3, 2001
Four related petitions were filed (1) asking that Estrada
stop “exercising the powers and authority of the
President under the Constitution” and “to yield the
Presidency to his constitutional successor, Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo.” (2) that “the occupation of the
office of [the President] of the Philippines by Vice-
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is constitutional
and legal with the full support of the Filipino people
and other foreign countries.,” (3) asking for a
“definitive ruling on whether or not Joseph Estrada is
still the President” and, hence. “exempt from all
criminal suits,” and (4) praying “that the proclamation
and oath-taking of Madame Arroyo . . . Be declared null
and void . . .” or that she be “declared acting President
and President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, President-on-
leave. . .” Decide.
1. Petitions are essentially for declaratory relief
over which the Supreme Court has no original
jurisdiction.
2. As petitions for prohibition and mandamus they
fail to allege, much less show, lack or excess of
jurisdiction, or grave abuse of jurisdiction on the
part of “any tribunal, corporation, board, officer
or person whether exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions,” which Rule 65
of the Rules of Court requires to be alleged and
proven before the extra-ordinary writ of
prohibition may be issued.
3. Petitioners have no legal standing
4. They may not be treated as quo
warranto because a plea for quo
warranto must be commenced (a) by
the solicitor general, (b) by a public
procecutor, and (c) by “a person
claiming to be entitled to a public
office or position usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by
another.” None of the petitioners
qualify in law to commence the action.
Lozano, et al. v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R.
No. 146579, February 6, 2001.
When the Senate President or Speaker
becomes Acting President, does he lose
the Senate presidency or the
speakership?

No.
 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 the Representatives
who shall assume office upon the Congress,
voting separately.
How is vacancy in the vice-
presidency filled?
See Section 9. (Note that previous constitution
did not have a rule for filling such vacancy. Note
also that, by not limiting the choice to the
Senate, the President is given a wider range of
choices.)
SECTION 10
The Congress shall, at 10 o’clock in the morning of the 3rd
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 7 days enact a law calling
for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-
President to be held not earlier thank 45 days nor later
thank 60 days from the time of such call. The bill calling such
special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2,
Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution and shall become
law upon its approval on 3rd 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 VI 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 18
months before the date of the next presidential election.
What must Congress do in case
a vacancy occurs in the offices of
President and Vice-President?
See Section 10.
 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 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 transmits within 5 days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of the 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 48 hours, in accordance with
its rules and without need of call
If the Congress, within 10 days after receipt
of the last written declaration, or, if not in
session, within 12 days after it is required to
assemble, determines by a 2/3 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.
The matter of deciding whether
the President is so unable to
discharge the functions of his
office that someone else must
take over from him can create a
government crisis, especially if the
President is unwilling to concede
his inability. How is a question of
inability resolved?
See Section 11.

NOTE:
In Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2,
2001; G.R. No. 146738, April 3, 2001, the
Court said that Estrada did not merely
temporarily hand over the exercise of
presidential powers to Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo but resigned from the Presidency.
 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.
What kind of illness is
envisioned by Section 12?
Section 12 envisions not just illness which
incapacitates but also serious illness which can
be a matter of national concern. (Incidentally,
Section 12 grew out of a lesson learned from
Soviet Russia. Nothing to do with local history)
Who has the duty of releasing
the information?
The section does not specify the officer on who,
the duty devolves. It is understood that the
Office of the President would be responsible for
making the disclosure.
 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 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 or
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, Under-
secretaries, chairmen or heads or bureaus or
offices, including government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
What are the prohibitions imposed
on the President and his official
family? On his relatives?
See Section 13.
If an undersecretary sits in the PEZA
Board meetings fro the Secretary, does he
also have the disqualification of the
Secretary?
Yes. As the Undersecretary himself admitted, he
in separate or special appointment for such
position. Since the Secretary of Labor is
prohibited from receiving compensation for his
additional office or employment, such
prohibition likewise applies to the petitioner
who sat in the Board only in behalf of te
Secretary of Labor. Bitonio v. COA, G.R. No.
147392, March 12, 2004.
May the Presidential Legal Counsel
be made PCGG Chairman?
Since the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel has the
duty of giving independent and impartial legal
advice on the actions of the heads of various
executive departments and agencies and to review
investigations involving other presidential
appointees, he may not occupy a position in any of
the offices whose performance he must review.
Such would involve occupying incompatible
positions. Thus he cannot be PCGG Chairman and
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel at the same time
of time since the PCGG answers to the President.
Public Interest Group v. Elma, G.R. No. 128965,
June 20, 2006.
President Aquino issued E.O. No.
284 which read in part:
Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by
ordinary functions of his position, a
member of the Cabinet, undersecretary
or assistant secretary or other
appointive officials of the Executive
Department may, in addition to his
primary position, hold not more than
two positions in the government and
government corporations xxx

Valid?
Invalid. This in effect gives to the President and
the rest of her official family the broad
exceptions found in Section 7, Par. 2, of Article
IX-B which is the general rule for public officials.
Section 13, Art.VII, however, is the exception.
“[W]hile all other appointive officials in the civil
service are allowed to hold other office and
employment in the government during their
tenure when such is allowed by law or by the
primary functions of their positions, members of
the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do
so only when expressly authorized by the
Constitution itself.” Civil Liberties Union v.The
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, 22 February
1991.
What is the meaning of “directly” or “indirectly?”
Does the fact that the accused, a PCGG
Commissioner, has not signed any document
submitting to DECS a bid of the family
corporation of which he is member justify
quashing the information?

Quashal is not justified. The constitutional ban is

similar to the prohibition in the Civil Service Law
(PD No. 807, Sec. 36, subpar. 24) that “pursuit of
private business . . Without the permission
required by Civil Service Rules and Regulations”
shall be a ground for disciplinary action against
any officer or employee in the civil service.
Doromal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85468,
September 7, 1989.
 SECTION 14
Appointments extended by an Acting
President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President within
90 days from his assumption or
resumption of office.
Does an Acting President
possess powers to appoint?
Yes, but his appointments may be revoked by
the elected President within 90 days from his
assumption or reassumption of office,
 SECTION 15
2 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.
Are there time periods when
appointments may not be made?
Yes. See Section 15. Note that if it is necessary
to make appointments during this period, only
temporary appointments can be extended and
only to the executive department.
Does this rule apply to
appointments to the judiciary?
According to In re: Appointment of Valenzuela,
AM 98-0501 SC, November 9, 2998 the
provision applies to the judiciary. However,
according to De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council,
G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010 and May 1, 2010.
it does not apply to appointments to the
Supreme Court. See dissent.
Petitioners seek the recall of
the appointments of the 14
private respondents before
the CSC on the ground that
these were “midnight
appointments” by the Mayor
forbidden under Article VII,
Section 15 of the
Constitution. Decide.
The prohibition applies only to presidential
appointments. There is no law that prohibits
local elective officials from making
appointments during the last days of his or her
tenure. De la Rama v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
131136, February 28, 2001.
 SECTION 16
The President shall not 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 have effective
only until disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.
What is the nature of the
appointing power?

It is executive in nature, Government v. Springer,

50 Phil. 259, 283 (1927)
What follows from the fact that the
appointing power is executive in
nature?
Since appointment to office is an executive function,
the clear implication is that the legislature may not
usurp such function. The legislature may create an
office and prescribe the qualifications of the person
who may hold the office, but it may not neither
specify who shall be appointed to such office nor
actually appoint him. The “appointing power is the
exclusive prerogative of the [President], upon which
no limitations may be imposed by Congress, except
those resulting. . . From the limited exercise of
power to prescribe the qualifications to a given
appointive office.” Manalang v. Quitoriano, 94
Phil. 903, 911 (1954)
NOTE:
The appointing authority of the President,
however, should not be confused with the
authority of the legislature to impose additional
duties on existing offices. Thus, under the 1935
Constitution, while it was clearly the prerogative
of the President to appoint the members of the
Supreme Court , Roxas v. Lopez, 17 SCRA 756
(1966) upheld the authority of Congress to
create a President Electoral Tribunal consisting of
the Chief Justice and the Justices of the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court held that the act did
not create a new office nor specify who should
hold the office but merely imposed additional
duties and powers upon the Supreme Court and
consequently upon whoever may be the
incumbent Chief Justice and Associate Justices.
Id. At 770.
Does the power to appoint include
the power to decide who among
various choices is the best qualified?

Yes, provided that the person chosen has the

qualifications provided by law.
Is the absence of recommendation of
the Secretary of Justice to the President
fatal to the appointment of respondent
Conrado Quiaoit for prosecutor?
The answer pivots on the proper understanding
of the provisions of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1987 (Book IV, Title III, Chapter II,
Section 9) to the effect that –
“All provincial and city prosecutors and their
assistants shall be appointed by the President
upon the recommendation of the Secretary.’’
Appointment calls for discretion on the part
of the appointing authority. The power to
appoint prosecutors is given to the
President. The Secretary of Justice is under
the control of the President. Hence, the law
must be read simply as allowing the
Secretary of Justice to advice the President.
The doctrine in San Juan v. CSC, 196 SCRA
69 is not applicable because the stress there
was on the constitutional mandate on local
autonomy. Bermudez, et al. v. Secretary, G.R.
No. 131429, August 4, 1999.
What is the scope of the President’s
appointing power?
Section 16 enumerates the officers who are
appointed by the President: “The President shall
. . . 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.
In addition to the above, he also appoints
Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of lower courts (Article VIII, Section 9), the
regular members of the Judicial and Bar
Council, the Chairmen and Members of the
Constitutional Commissions [Article IX, B,
Section 1920; C, Section 1920; D, Section
1920, the Ombudsman and his Deputies
(Article XI, Section 9)
What is the significance of the above
enumeration?
The enumeration means that Congress
may not give to any other officer the
power to appoint the above enumerated
officers.
May the appointing authority be given to
others?
Appointing authority may also be given to other
officials than the President. Thus Section 16 says:
“The Congress may, be 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.” Rufino v. Endriga,
G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006 interpreted this to
mean that, when the authority is given to head of
collegial bodies, it is to the chairman that the
authority is given and not to the body. But he can
appoint only officers “lower in rank,” and not
officers equal in rank to him. Thus a Chairman
may not appoint a fellow member of a Board.
What appointments need confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments?
Only those enumerated in Section 16.
This is different from the law under the 1935
Constitution where the general rule was that all
appointments made by the President needed
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments unless exempted by Congress
from the need for confirmation Moreover, “ad
interim appointments” under the second
paragraph of the Section 16 are immediately
effective.
Did the appointment of a sectoral
representative require confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments?
Yes. The sectoral representative fell under the
clause “other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution. “ Quintos-
Deles, et al. v. Commission on Appointments, G.R.
No. 83216, September 4, 1989.
Does the appointment of the Commissioner
of Customs need confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments?
No, since the office is not one of those
mentioned in the first sentence of Article VII,
Section 16, nor is it specified elsewhere that
such appointment needs consent of the
Commission. Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
(December 17, 1987).
Does the appointment of the Chairman of the
Commission on Human Rights require the
consent of the Commission on Appointments?
No, since the office is not one of those
mentioned in the first sentence of Article VII,
Section 16, nor is it specified elsewhere that
such appointment needs consent of the
Commission. Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439,
April 13, 1989.
Do appointments and promotions in the
Philippine Coast Guard need
confirmation?

No, The Coast Guard us a civilian unit. Soriano v.

Lista, 447 Phil. 566 (2003)
May Congress expand the list of those
whose appointment needs confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments?
No. Calderon v. Carale,208 SCRA 254 (1992),
although still with some dissents, definitively
ruled that Congress may not expand the list of
appointments needing confirmation. The case
involved R.A. 6715 which required that the
Chairman and Commissioners of the National
Labor Relations Commission be appointed by
the President with the confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments.
The Court reiterated its ruling in Mison and
Bautista saying that the list in the first
sentence of Section 16 of those whose
appointments require confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments is exclusive,
adding that the list may not be expanded by
statutory legislation. The same doctrine was
followed in Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553
(1994), with reference to the appointment of
the Central Bank Governor and also in
Manalo v. Sistoza, et. Al., G.R. No. 107369,
August 11, 1999. with reference to the
appointment of the head of the Philippine
National Police.
Is the promotion of senior officers of the
PNP subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointment as
required by the PNP law?
No. Congress may not expand the list of those
needing CA confirmation. Besides, PNP officers
are not members of the Armed Forces but are
civilians. Manalo v. Sistoza, et. Al., G.R. No. 107369,
August 11, 1999.
When a law creating an office is silent as
to who should appoint the
corresponding officer, who should?

The President.
What are “ad-interim appointments?”

They are appointments made by the President

during the recess of Congress (during which
the Commission on Appointments does not
meet).
Is an Ad-interim appointment
temporary?
No. Petitioner posits the view that an ad
interim appointment can be withdrawn or
revoked by the President at her pleasure, and
can even be disapproved or simply by-passed by
the Commission on Appointments. For this
reason, petitioner claims that an ad interim
appointment is temporary in character and
consequently prohibited by the last sentence of
Section 1(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
An as interim appointment is permanent.
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,
April 2, 2002
What is the affectivity and duration of
ad-interim appointments?
They are effective immediately, without need for
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments, but the effectivity lasts “only
until disapproval by the Commission on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of
the Congress.”
What is the difference between an ad-
interim appointment and an
appointment in an acting capacity?

(1) The former refers only to positions which

need confirmation by the Committee on
Appointment while the latter is also given to
those which do not need confirmation.
(2) The former may be given only when
Congress is not in session whereas the latter
may be given even when Congress is in session.
The President made appointments of
Acting Department Secretaries while
Congress was in session.The appointments
were challenged on the grounds that: (1)
the administrative Code says that, in the
absence of a Secretary, the Undersecretary
performs his functions; (2) appointments of
acting secretaries need confirmation; (3)
For its part, respondent says that since the
petitioner-senators are not members of the
Commission on Appointment, they have in
standing to challenge the act of the
President.
(1) Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the
President the obligation to appoint
automatically the undersecretary as her
temporary alter ego. An alter ego, whether
temporary or permanent, holds a position of
great trust and confidence. Congress, in the
guise of prescribing qualifications to an office,
cannot impose on the President who here
alter ego should be.
(2) The office of a department secretary may
become vacant while Congress is in session.
Since a department secretary is the alter ego
of the President, the acting appointee to the
office must necessarily have the President’s
confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the
office of a department secretary, the President
must appoint in an acting capacity of a person
of her choice even while Congress is in
session. That person may or
or may not be the permanent appointee, but
practical reasons may make it expedient that
the acting appointee will also be permanent
appointee. Moreover, the law expressly
allows the President to make such acting
appointment. Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I,
Book III of EO 292 states that “[t]he
President may temporarily designate an
officer already in the government service or
any other competent person to perform
the functions of an office in the executive
branch.”
3. As to standing, yes, since the Commission
on appointments is independent of the
Senate, senators who are not members of
the CA may not act in their behalf. Pimentel,
Jr. v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13,
2005.
 SECTION 17
The President shall have control of
all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
What is the power of control?

The power of control has been defined as “the

power of an officer to alter or modify or nullity
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.” Mondano v. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143, 148
(1955). It is such power which has been given to
the President over all executive officers, from
Cabinet members to the lowliest clerk. This is
an element of the presidential system where the
President is “the Executive of the Government
of the Philippines, and no other,
The heads of the executive departments
occupy political positions and hold office in
an advisory capacity, and, in the language of
Thomas Jefferson ‘should be of the
President’s bosom confidence,’ and, in the
language of Attorney General Cushing, ‘are
subject to the direction of the President.”
Villena v. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451, 464
(1939). Also, Lacson-Magallanes Co. Inc. v. Pano,
21 SCRA 895 (1967).
Section 31 of E.O. No. 292 (Administrative
Code of 1987) provided an incentive award
system for government employees. On 21
February 1992, President Aquino issued A.O.
No. 268 enjoining the grant of productivity
incentive benefits without prior approval of
the President. On 19 January 1993, President
Ramos issued A.O. No. 29, which limited the
amount of incentive benefits for 1992,
enjoined head of government agencies from
granting incentive benefits without prior
approval from him, and directed the refund of
the excess over the prescribed amount.
Petitioners are officials and employees of
several government departments and agencies
who were paid incentive benefits for 1992.
They assail the constitutionality of A.O. Nos.
29 and 268 on the ground that:
1. they violate the provisions of E.O. No.
292 and, since the latter is a law, it prevails
over executive issuances; and
2. they encroach upon the constitutional
authority of the Civil Service Commission to
adopt measures to strengthen the merit and
rewards system and to promulgate rules,
regulations and standards governing the
incentive awards system of the
civil service. Decide.
1. Both A.O. Nos. 29 and 268 were issued in the valid
exercise of presidential control over the executive
departments. “The President issued subject
Administrative Orders to regulate the grant of
productivity incentive benefits and to prevent
discontentment, dissatisfaction and demoralization
among government personnel by committing
limited resources of government for the equal
payment of incentives and awards. The President
was only exercising his power of control by
modifying the acts of the respondents who
granted incentive benefits to their employees
without appropriate clearance from the Office of
the President, thereby resulting in the uneven
distribution of government resources,” Blanquera v.
Alcala, G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, 112056
and 119597, September 11, 1998, pp. 59-60.
2. The President did not encroach upon the
authority of the CSC to grant benefits to
government personnel. A.O. Nos. 29 and
268 did not revoke the privilege of
employees to receive incentive benefits,
but merely regulated the grant and
amount thereof. Fixing the amount of the
incentives is not the duty of the CSC. Such
function belongs to the President of his
duly empowers alter ego. Id. at 60-61.
What is the doctrine of “qualified
political agency?
The doctrine, recognizing that the Constitution
has established a single and not a plural
executive, postulates that “all executive and
administrative organizations are adjuncts of the
Executive Department, the heads of the various
executive departments are assistants and agents
of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases
where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that
he act personally, the multifarious
executive and administrative
functions of the Chief Executive are performed
by and through the executive departments, and
the acts of the secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by
the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the
Chief Executive. “Villena v. Secretary of Interior, 67
Phil. 451 and 463. Thus, a decision of a
department secretary, when not reprobated by
the Executive, is the last step in the process of
“exhausting administrative remedies.” E.g.,
Demaisip v. Court of Tax Appeals, 106 Phil 237
(1959). But see Calo v. Fuentes, 5 SCRA 397
(1962) and Ganob v. Ramos, 27 SCRA 1174
(1969)
Thus, too, the Executive Secretary when
acting “by authority of the President,” may
reverse the decision of another department
secretary. Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano , 21 SCRA
895 (1967). By authority of the President, he
also has the power to modify, alter or
reverse a construction of a statute given by
the Secretary of Justice. Maceda v. Macaraig,
Jr., 197 SCRA 771 (1991)
Similarly, the action of the Secretary of the
DENR, exercising the Presiden’s power to
recognize, is presumed to by the action of
the President. DENR v. DENR Employees,
G.R. No. 149724. August 19, 2003.
Does the power of control include the
power to reorganize executive offices?
It has been held, moreover, that the express
grant of the power of control to the President
justifies an executive action to carry out the
reorganization of an executive office under a
broad authority of law. Anak Mindanao v.
Executive Sec., G.R. No. 166052, August 29, 2007;
Tondo Medical Center Employees v. CA. G.R. No,
167324, July 17, 2007;
Reorganization can involve the reduction of
personnel, consolidation of offices, or even
abolition of positions by reason of economy
or redundancy of functions. While the power
to abolish an office is generally lodged with
the legislature, the authority of the President
to reorganize the executive branch, which
may include such abolition, is permissible
under present laws. Malaria Employees v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 160093, July 31,
2007.
NOTE:

The President ‘s power of control means his

power to reverse the judgment of an inferior
officer, It may also be exercised in his behalf by
Department Heads. Thus, the Secretary of
Justice may reverse the judgment of a
prosecutor and direct him to withdraw an
information already filed. Such action however,
should appeal to the Office of the President in
order to exhaust administrative remedies prior
to bringing it to court. Orosa v. Roa, G.R. No.
14047, July 14, 2006; DENR v. DENR Employees,
G.R. No. 149724, August 19, 2003.
It has been held, moreover, that the express
grant of the power of control to the President
justifies an executive action to carry out the
reorganization of an executive office under a
broad authority of law. Reorganization can
involve the reduction of personnel,
consolidation of offices, or even abolition of
positions by reason of economy or redundancy
of functions. While the power to abolish an
office is generally lodged with the legislature, the
authority of the President to reorganize the
executive branch, which may include such
abolition, is permissible under present laws.
Anak Mindanao v. Executive Sec., G.R. No. 166052
, August 29, 2007; Tondo Medical Center
Employees v. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007;
Malaria Employees v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
160093, July 31, 2007.
Note:
Petitioner further contends that from the
decision of respondent BOI, appeal to the Office
of the President should be allowed,; otherwise,
the constitutional power of the President to
review acts of department secretaries will be
rendered illusory by mere rules of procedure.
However, such “executive control” is not
absolute. The definition of the structure of the
executive branch of government, and the
corresponding degrees of administrative control
and supervision is not the exclusive preserve of
the executive. It may be effectively limited by the
Constitution, by law, or by judicial decisions. All
the more in the matter of appellate procedure as
in the instant case.
Appeals are remedial in nature; hence,
constitutionally subject to this Court’s rule-
making power. The Rules of Procedure we
reissued by the Court pursuant to Section 5,
Article VIII of the Constitution, which
expressly empowers the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules concerning the procedure
in all courts. Philips Seafoods v. BOI, G.R. No.
175787, February 4, 2009.
May an Assistant Executive Secretary,
acting for the President, reverse a
decision of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Resources?

Yes, under the well established doctrine of

“Qualified political agency.” Roque v. Director of
Lands, L-25373, July 1, 1976.
May the Director of the NBI ignore or
defy the order of the Secretary of
Justice?

The acts of the Secretary of Justice in the

ordinary course of the performance of his
duties are acts of the President which are
controlling over all executive officers. Hence,
the NBI Director must obey. De Leon v. Carpio,
October 12, 1989.
Compare the power of control with the
disciplinary power of the President.
From cases decided so far, the following synthesis
of the power of control may be made. As defined in
Mondano v. Silvosa, supra, it is “the power of an
officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate had done in the performance of
his duties and to substitute the judgment of the
former for that of the latter.” This power, however,
“merely applies to the exercise of control over the
acts of the subordinate in the performance of his
duties. It only means that the President may set
aside the judgment or action taken by the
subordinate in the performance of his duties.”
Ang-Angco v. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619, 629 (1963).
The power of control, therefore, is not the
source of Executive’s disciplinary power over
the person of his subordinates. Rather, his
disciplinary power flows from his power to
appoint,” Id. At 630. Moreover, this inherent
disciplinary power has been made subject to
limitation by the legislature through the latter’s
power to provide for a civil service system one
of whose main features is security of tenure:
“No officer or employee in the Civil Service
shall be suspended or dismissed except for
cause as provided by law, “ Article IX, B, Section
2(3). Hence, it can be said that while the
Executive has control over the “judgment” or
“discretion” of his subordinates, it is the
legislature which has control over their
“person”
Does the President have control over
officers of government owned
corporation?
Yes. However, it is submitted that such power
over government-owned corporations comes
not from the Constitution but from statute.
Hence, it may also be taken away by statute. See
NAMARCO v. Arca, 29 SCRA 648 (1969). Bernas,
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT 131-132. (Would
it make any difference now that the
Constitution makes a distinction between
government owned corporations with
original charter and those with derivative
charter?)
What is the significance of the second
sentence of Section 17 which says “HE
SHALL ENSURE THAT THELAWS BE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED?
This means that the President can do whatever
is needed to ensure that the laws, general or
special, are followed. For this reason, the
majority of the Court in Birango v.Truth
Commission, G.R. No. 192935, December 7, 2010,
upheld the power of the President to create a
Truth Commission although the Commission
was invalidated for violation of the equal
protection clause.
What is power of supervision?

It is the power if a superior officer to “ensure

that the laws are faithfully executed” by
inferiors. The power of supervision does not
include the power of control; but the power of
control necessarily includes the power of
supervision. (The power of the President over
local governments is only one of general
supervision. See Article X, Sections 4 and 16.)
 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 60 days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Within 48 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, it the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public
safety requires it.

 The Congress, it not in session, shall, within

24 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 30 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 offense 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 3
days, otherwise he shall be released.
What is the significance of the
Commander-in-Chiefship of the
President?
The not effect of Article II, Section 3, when read
with Article VII, Section 18, is that a civilian
President holds supreme military authority and
is the ceremonial, legal, and administrative head
of the armed forces. The Constitution does not
require that the President must be possessed of
military training and talents, but as Commander-
in-Chief, he has the power to direct military
operations and to determine military strategy.
Normally, he would be expected to delegate the
actual command of the armed forces to military
experts;
but the ultimate power is his “As
Commander-in-Chief, he is authorized to
direct the movements of the naval and
military forces placed by law at his
command, and to employ them in the
manner he may deem most effectual to
harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.”
Fleming v. Page, 9 How 603, 615 U.S. (1850)
Under what conditions may the
President call out the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence,
etc.?
“[W]henever it becomes necessary.”
When the President calls out the armed
forces, is his action subject to judicial
review?
It may be gathered from the broad grant of power
that the actual use to which the President puts the
armed forces ism unlike the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, not subject to
judicial review. He is authorized “whenever it
becomes necessary, [to] call out [the] armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence.” What was
said by the American Supreme Court in Martin v
Mott, 12 Wheat 19 U.S. (1827) which Lansang v.
Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971) said was not applicable
to the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, must be considered applicable
to the broad power to make use of the
armed forces “to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, [insurrection,] or
rebellion.” “The authority to decide whether
the exisgency has arisen,” declared the
American Court, “belongs exclusively to the
President, and . . . His decision is conclusive
upon all other persons.” Martin v. Mott, 12
Wheat at 30.
What is a writ of habeas corpus? The
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
What is suspended by the President, the
writ of the privilege?
The answer to these questions are discussed
under Article III, Section 15.
 To whom does the suspension of the
privilege apply?
“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.”
What is the duty of the State after
arrests and detention on the basis of the
suspension of the privilege?
“During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall
be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise he
shall be released.”
What is “martial law?”
Martial law is essentially police power. This is borne
out by object of the exercise of martial law. Public
safety is the concern of police power. What is
peculiar, however, about martial law as police power
is that, whereas police power is normally a function
of the legislature executed by the civilian executive
arm, under martial law, police power is exercised by
the executive with the aid of the military and in
place of “certain governmental agencies which for
the time being are unable to cope with existing
conditions in a locality which remains subject to the
sovereignty.” In the language of Justice Black, it
authorizes “the military to act vigorously for the
maintenance of an orderly civil government.”
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 323
(1946). Or in the language of Justice Stone,
it is:
the exercise of the power which resides in the
executive branch of the government to
preserve order and insure the public safety in
times of emergency, when other branches of
the government are unable to function, or their
functioning would itself threaten the public
safety. . . It is the law of necessity to be
prescribed and administered by the executive
power. Its object, the preservation of the public
safety and good order, defines the scope, which
will vary with the circumstances and necessities
of the case. The exercise of the power may not
extend beyond what is required by the exigency
which calls it forth . . Id. At 335-6.
Is the scope of “martial law” powers a
fixed concept?
What emerges from the above observations on
martial law as police power as well as from the text
of the Constitution is that martial law is a flexible
concept. Martial law depends on two factual bases:
(1) the existence of actual invasion or rebellion, and
(2) the requirements of public safety. Necessity
creates the conditions for martial law and at the
same time limits the scope of martial law. Certainly,
the necessities created by a state of invasion would
be different from those created by rebellion.
Necessarily, therefore, the degree and kind of
vigorous executive action needed to meet the
varying kinds and degrees of emergency could not
be identical under all conditions.
 Note:
Because of this amorphous shape of the
martial law power, the Marcos Supreme
Court arrived at the following conclusions:
1. That the proclamation of martial law automatically
suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. That the President of the Philippines, “as
Commander-in-Chief and as enforcer or
administrator of martial law .. . Can promulgate
proclamations, orders and decrees during the
period of martial law essential to the security and
preservation of the Republic, to the defense of the
political and social liberties of the people, and to
the institution of reforms to prevent the resurgence
of rebellion or insurrection or secession of the
threat thereof as well as to meet the impact of a
world recession, inflation or economic crisis
which presently threatens all nations
including highly developed countries . . .”
3. That the President of the Philippines, as
legislator during the period of martial law, can
legally create military commissions or courts
martial to try not only members if the armed
forces but also civilian offenders for specified
offenses.
This summary is taken from Gumaua v.
Espino, 96 SCRA 403, 403-7 (February 29, 1980).
The new Constitution, however, rejects the
above Marcos Court pronouncements and now
says categorically: “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.”
What limitations on the power to
suspend the privilege and the power to
impose martial law have been
formulated in the new Constitution?
In general, the limits that have been imposed
are: (1) a time limit of 60 days; (2) review and
possible revocation by Congress; (3) review and
possible nullification by the Supreme Court.
Specifically, what are these limits?
“In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within 48 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
24 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 30 days from filing.
How does Congress vote when deciding
whether to revoke or extend the
suspension of the privilege or the
imposition of martial law?
The Senate and the House of Representatives
vote “jointly.” This is a departure from the
general rule that the two Houses vote
separately when deciding an issue. The purpose
of the departure from the general rule is to
facilitate the override of the suspension or the
imposition.
Is the imposition of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege a political
question?
No. Whatever doubt there may have been
under the former Constitutions, the new
Constitution now categorically states that 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 30 days
from its filing.”
Petitioners argue that the declaration of
a “state of rebellion” by President
Arroyo is violative of the doctrine of
separation of powers, being an
encroachment on the domain of the
judiciary which has the constitutional
prerogative to “determine or interpret”
what took place in EDSA III on May 1,
2001, and that the declaration of a state
of rebellion cannot be an exception to
the general rule on the allocation
of the governmental powers.
Decide
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
expressly provides that “[t]he 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 . . “ It was held in Integrated Bar of the
Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, (G.R. No. 141284,
August 15, 2000) that the factual necessity of
calling out the armed forces is something that is
for the President to decide. He has a vast
intelligence network to gather information,
some of which may be classified as highly
confidential or affecting the security of the
state.
In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-
spot decisions may be imperatively necessary
in emergency situations to avert great loss of
human in a proper case, may look into the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise
of this power, on the basis of its power to
determine grave abuse of discretion, there is
no longer feasible when the proclamation has
already been lifted. Lacson v. Secretary Perez,
G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001; Sanlakas v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February
3, 2004.
When the President exercises the option
to call on the armed forces does he
thereby acquire new powers including
emergency powers?
No. It simply means that he is calling on the
Armed Forces to assist the police. But this does
not give her additional powers. Lacson v.
Secretary Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001;
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085,
February 3, 2004. Certainly, for instance, it does
not authorize warrantless arrests. David v.
Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3, 2006. And a
President can claim emergency powers only
when these arte granted by Congress under
Article VI, Section 23.
What power does he have over the
military?
Since the President is commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces she can demand obedience from
military officers. Military officers who disobey or
ignore her command can be subjected to court
martial proceeding. Thus, for instance, the President
as Commander in Chief may prevent a member of
the armed forces from testifying before a legislative
inquiry. A military officer who disobeys the
President’s directive may be made to answer before
a court martial. Since, however, Congress has the
power to conduct legislative hearings, Congress
may make use of remedies under the law to compel
attendance.
Any military official whom Congress
summons to testify before it may be
compelled to do so by the President. If the
President is not so inclined, the President
may be commanded by judicial order to
compel the attendance of the military officer.
Final judicial orders have the force of the
law of the land which the President has the
duty to faithfully execute. Gudani v. Senga,
G.R. No. 170165, April 15, 2006.
Note:
Since the effectively of the 1987 Constitution, the
power to declare martial law and suspend the
privilege has been used only once. President Arroyo
declared martial law in Maguindanao on the
occasion of the Ampatuan massacre but she lifted it
within weeks. What Presidents have done instead
has been merely to make use of the third Section
18 power, that is, to call on the Armed Forces to
help the police maintain order. But this does not
give give her additional powers. Lacson v. Secretary
Perez, G.R. No. 147780, February 3, 2004. Certainly,
for instance, it does not authorize warrantless
arrests. David v. Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3,
2006. Moreover, the President can claim
emergency powers only when these are
granted to her by Congress under Article VI,
Section 23.
What is the purpose of the grant
of the power of executive?
That Section 19 gives to the President the
power of executive clemency is a tacit
admission that human institutions are imperfect
and that there are infirmities in the
administration of justice. The power therefore
exists as an instrument for correcting these
infirmities and for mitigating whatever
harshness might be generated by a too strict
application of the law.
What are the forms of
executive clemency?
They are: reprieves, commutations, pardons,
remission of fines and forfeitures, amnesty.
May the president extend executive
clemency for administrative
penalties?
Yes. The Constitution makes no distinction with
regard to the extent of the pardoning power
except with respect to impeachment. Llamas v
Orbos, G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991.
What are reprieves, commutations,
and remission of fines and
forfeitures?
A reprieve “postpones the execution of an offense
to a day certain.” People v.Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 110
(1937), and a commutation “is a remission of a part
of the punishment; a substitution of a less penalty
for the one originally imposed.” Id. At 111.
Remission of fines and forfeitures is a self-
explanatory term. However, it should be noted that
remission of fines and forfeitures merely prevents
the collection of fines or the confiscation of
forfeited property; it cannot have the effect
or returning property which has been
vested in third parties or money in public
treasury.
After serving sentence for 6 years,
accused was release and placed under
house arrest. Was his sentence effectively
commuted to 6 years?
Yes. Commutation does not have to be in any
specific form. The fact that he was released after
six years and the fact that house arrest is not a
penalty leads to the conclusion that the penalty
had been shortened. Drilon v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 91626, October 3, 1991.
Define pardon.
United State v.Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 (U.S. 1833), defines
it thus:
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of the laws,
which exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a
crime he has committed. It is the private, though
official, act of the executive magistrate, delivered to
the individual for whose benefit it is intended and
not communicated officially to the Court. . . A
pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is
essential, and delivery is not complete without
acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person
to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we
have discovered no power in a court to force
it on him.
Are the above definition and characteristics
of pardon applicable to the Philippine
concept?
It is submitted that a distinction must be made
between absolute and conditional pardon.
Absolute pardon is complete even without
acceptance; whereas “a conditional pardon has
no force until accepted by the condemned. The
reason is obvious. The condition may be less
acceptable to him than the original punishment,
and may in fact be more onerous.” See Cabantag
v.Wolfe, 6 Phil. 273, 278 (1906)
Petitioner was a teacher with a rank
of Principal I. Convicted of a criminal
offense, he was sentenced to one year
imprisonment and disqualification to
hold public office. Subsequently he was
given absolute pardon and restored to
“full civil and political rights.” He
applied for reinstatement and was
given the position merely of classroom
teacher. Is he entitled to his old rank
of Principal I?
It is true that one who is given absolute
pardon has no demandable right to
reinstatement. Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., G.R.
78239, February 9, 1989. However, since the
petitioner in this instance was actually
reinstated and there are no circumstances
that would warrant the diminution of his rank,
justice and equity dictates that he be given his
former rank of Principal I. Sabello v.
Department of Education, G.R. No. 87687,
December 26, 1989.
Petitioner, an assistant treasurer, was
convicted of estafa through falsification of
public documents and received a penalty
which included temporary absolute
disqualification to last during the period of
her sentence. The conviction was upheld by
the Supreme Court but she filed a motion
for reconsideration. Pending
reconsideration she was granted absolute
pardon. Is she entitled to reinstatement to
her former position even without a new
appointment?
No. Pardon removes all penalties and legal
disabilities. But it does not restore legal office
already forfeited. Since, however, her
disqualification has been removed,it qualifies
her to apply for a new appointment.
Mansanto v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78239,
February 9, 1989. See dissents
What happens, however, if a pardon is
given because he was acquitted on the
ground that he did not commit the
crime?

Such a case would be different from Monsanto.

Reinstatement and backwages would be due.
Garcia v. Commission on Audit, 226 SCRA 356
(1993)
Where conditional pardon has been
granted, who determines whether
the condition has been violated?
The President, and the President alone. The
convict’s acceptance of the conditional pardon
carries with it acceptance of the President’s
authority. Torres v. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272
(1987). See dissent of Cruz, J.
What is the effect of pardon when extended
to one who has a pending appeal?
Since pardon can be extended only to one
whose conviction is final, pardon has no effect
until the person withdraws his appeal and
thereby allows his conviction to be final. People
v. Salle, Jr., G.R No. 103567, December 4, 1995.
(This corrects People v. Crisola, 128 SCRA 1
(March 2, 1984), which said that clemency
terminates the appeal.
May the president extend executive
clemency for administrative penalties?
Yes. The Constitution makes no distinction with
regard to the extend of the pardoning power
except with respect to impeachment. Llamas v.
Orbos, G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991.
What is amnesty?
Amnesty “commonly denotes the “general
pardon to rebels for their treason and other
high political offenses,” or the forgiveness which
one sovereign grants to the subjects of another,
who have offended by some breach of the law
of nations.” Villa v. Allen, 2 Phil. 436, 439 (1903)
A convicted prisoner claims to be covered
by a general amnesty. May a court order
his release in a habeas corpus petition?
No. His proper remedy is to submit his case to
the proper amnesty board, in this case, the
COMELEC. De Vera v. Animas, L-48176, 14
August 1978.
What are the differences between
pardon and amnesty?
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642 (1949)
enumerates thus:
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and such
it is a private act which must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned, because the courts
take no notice thereof; while amnesty by
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the
concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which
the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is
granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is
granted to classes of persons or
communities who may be guilty of
political offense, generally before
or after the institution of the criminal prosecution
and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks
forward and relieves the offender from the
consequences of an offense of which he has been
convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the
punishment, and for that reason it does “not work
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or
the right of suffrage, unless such rights be
expressly restored by the terms of the pardon,”
and it “in no case exempts the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him
by the sentence” (Article 36, Revised Penal Code).
While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and
puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so
overlooks and obliterates the offense with which
is charged that the person released by amnesty
stands before the law precisely as tough he held
he had committed no offense.
 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 provided by
law. The Monetary Board, shall, within 30 days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of its
decisions 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 2/3 of all the
Members of the Senate.
 SECTION 22
The President shall submit to the Congress
within 30 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 VIII
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
 SECTION 1
The judicial per shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
 SECTION 2
The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

No law shall be passed reorganizing the

Judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its members.
 SECTION 3
The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released.
 SECTION 4
1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief
Justice and 14 Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or, in its
discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 Members. Any vacancy
shall be filled within 90 days from the concurrence thereof.

2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,

international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be
heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases
which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard
en banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other
regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall
be decided or resolved with the concurrence
of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted thereon, and in no case,
without the concurrence of at least 3 of such
Members. When the required number is not
obtained the case shall be decided en banc:
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law
laid down by the court in a decision rendered
en banc or in division may be modified or
revered except by the court sitting en banc.
 SECTION 5
The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers:

1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases

affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules
of Court may provide, final judgments and
orders of lower courts in:

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.

c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any

lower court is in issue.

d. All criminal cases in which the penalty

imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

e. All cases in which only an error or

question of law is involved.
3. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts
to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall
not exceed 6 months without the consent
of the judge concerned.

4. Order a change of venue or place of trial

to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform
for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts
and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

6. Appoint all officials and employees of the

Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
 SECTION 7
1. No person shall be appointed Member of
the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court
must be at least 40 years of age, and must
have been for 15 years or more a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law
in the Philippines.
2. The Congress shall prescribe the
qualifications of judges of lower courts, but
no person may be appointed judge thereof
unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a
member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A member of the Judiciary must be a

person of proven competence, integrity,
probity, and independence.
 SECTION 8
1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created
under the supervision of the Supreme Court
compose of the Chief Justice as ex officio
Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a
representative of the Congress as ex officio
Members, a representative of the Integrated
Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of
the Supreme Court, and a representative of
the private sector.
2. The regular members of the Council shall
be appointed by the President for a term of
four years with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments. Of the
Members first appointed, the representative
of the Integrated Bar shall serve for 4 years,
and the representative of the private sector
for 1 year.

3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be

the Secretary ex officio of the Council and
shall keep a record of its proceedings.
5. The regular Members of the Council shall
receive such emoluments as may be
determined by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court shall provide in its annual
budget the appropriations for the Council.
 SECTION 9
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least 3 nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for
every vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue

the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list.
 SECTION 10
The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law.
During their continuance in office, their salary
shall not be decreased.
 SECTION 11
The Members of the Supreme Court and judges
of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of
their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall
have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the
case and voted thereon.
 SECTION 12
The Members of the Supreme Court and
of other courts established by law shall
not be designed to any agency performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
 SECTION 13
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case
submitted to it for decision en banc or in division
shall be reached in consultation before the case is
assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion
of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by
the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case and served upon
the parties.

Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or

abstained from a decision or resolution must state
the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate courts.
 SECTION 14
No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for

reconsideration of a decision of the court
shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
 SECTION 15
 All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of
this Constitution must be decided or resolved
within 24 months from the date of submission for
the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, 12 months for all lower collegiate
courts, and 3 months for all lower courts.

 A case or matter shall be deemed submitted

for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last
pleading, brief or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.
 Upon the expiration of the corresponding
period, a verification to this effect signed by the
Chief Justice of the presiding judge shall
forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached
to the record of the case or matter, and served
upon the parties. The certification shall state why
a decision or resolution has not been rendered
or issued within said period.

 Despite the expiration of the applicable

mandatory period, the court, without prejudice
to such responsibility as may have been incurred
in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve
the case or matter submitted thereto for
determination, without further delay.
 SECTION 16
The Supreme Court shall, within 30 days from
the opening of each regular session of the
Congress, submit to the President and the
Congress an annual report on the operations
and activities of the Judiciary.
 ARTICLE IX
(CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS)

A. COMMON PROVISIONS
 SECTION 1
The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be
independent, are the Civil Service Commission,
the Commission on Elections, and the
Commission on Audit.
 SECTION 2
No Member of a Constitutional Commission
shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the
practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which
in any way may be affected by the functions of
his office, nor shall he be financially interested,
directly or indirectly, in any contact with, or in
franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned
or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
 SECTION 3
The salary of the Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall
not be decreased during their tenure.
 SECTION 4
The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with
the law.
 SECTION 5
The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Their approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released.
 SECTION 6
Each Commission en banc may promulgate its
own rules concerning pleadings and practice
before it or before any of its offices. Such rules
however shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights.
 SECTION 7
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of
all its Members any case or matter brought before
it within 60 days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing
of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required
by the rules of the Commission or by the
Commission itself. Unless otherwise provides by
this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
 SECTION 8
Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may provided by law.
B.THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
 SECTION 1
1. The civil service shall be administered by
the Civil Service Commission composed of a
Chairman and 2 Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at
the time of their appointment, at least 35
years of age, with prove capacity for public
administration, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the
elections immediately preceding their
appointment.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners
shall be appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of 7 years
without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, the Chairman shall hold office
for 7 years, a Commissioner for 5 years,
and another Commissioner for 3 years,
without reappointment. Appointment to
any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall
any Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.
 SECTION 2
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:

 Enforce and administer all laws and regulations

relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.

 Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all

contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective Barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the
Commission on election contests involving
elective municipal and Barangay offices shall
be final, executory, and not appealable.

Decide, except those involving the right to

vote, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of
polling places, appointment of election officials
and inspectors, and registration of voters.

Deputize, with the concurrence of the

President, law enforcement agencies
SECTION 20
SECTION 20
SECTION 20
SECTION 20