Notes On Political Law

By: JUDGE SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR.

RTC Manila, Branch 26
Professor of Law and Pre-Bar Reviewer
UE, PUP, UDM, PLS, MANILA LAW COLLEGE
Remedial Law, Political Law and Commercial Law
Lecturer: Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
IBP, UE Law Center, PHIL Law School MCLE, Merrit Law
Lecturer: Philippine Judicial Academy
Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and
Enforced Disappearances
 POLITICAL LAW is that branch of public law which deal with the organization and operations of the
governmental organs of the State and defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is a study of the structure and powers of the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines. It also deals with certain basic concepts of Political Law, such as the nature of the State,
the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of majority.
 
 CONSTITUTION, according to Cooley, is “that body of rules and maxims in accordance with which
the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised.”

 With particular reference to the Constitution of the Philippines, the more appropriate description is that
given by Justice Malcolm, who speaks of it as “the written instrument enacted by 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 departments for their safe and useful exercise for
the benefit of the body politic.

Supremacy of the Constitution

 The Constitution is the most basic and most paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to
which all persons including the higher officials of the land must defer. No act shall be valid however
noble its intentions if it is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution must reign supreme. All
must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for
power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been
changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of law by the
pretenders to illegitimate power.
 Classification
Constitutions are classified into written or unwritten, evolved or enacted and rigid or
flexible.

A written constitution is one whose percepts are embodied in one document or set of
documents. An unwritten constitution, on the other hand, consists of rules which have not
been integrated into a single, concrete form but are scattered in various sources, such as
statutes of a fundamental character, judicial decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs
and traditions and certain common law principles.

A conventional constitution is an enacted constitution, formally “struck off” at a

definite time and place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body
or ruler. A cumulative constitution, by contrast, is the result of political evolution, “not
inaugurated at any specific time but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic
method.”

A rigid constitution is one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult
process whereas a flexible constitution is one that can be changed by ordinary legislation.
 The Constitution of the Philippines is written, conventional and rigid.

 Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution

A good written constitution must be broad, brief and definite.

 Broad – not only because it provides for the organization of the entire government and covers
all persons and things within the territory of the State but more so because it is supposed to
embody the past, to reflect the present and to anticipate the future.

 Brief – confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more
adjustable to change and easier to amend.

 Clear and Definite – lest ambiguity in its provisions result in confusion and divisiveness
among the people and perhaps even physical conflict. The exception is found only in those
cases where the rules are deliberately worded in a vague manner.
 
 Amendment or Revision

 Procedure 

(1) Proposal
◦ Directly by Congress – mere amendment or change of particular provisions only. In this case
the vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the Congress shall be needed.
◦ Constitutional Convention – envisioned is the overhaul of the entire Constitution.

Jurisprudence:
Occena v. COMELEC – it was held that at any rate, whatever the nature of the change
contemplated . The choice of the method of proposal is discretionary upon the legislature.

Imbong v. COMELEC – the Congress, acting as a constituent body, may with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its members call a constitutional convention in general terms only.
Thereafter, the same Congress, acting this time as a legislative body, may pass the necessary
implementing law providing for the details of the constitutional convention, such as the number,
qualifications and compensation of its members. This statute may be enacted in accordance with
the ordinary legislative process.
Sec. 2 of Article XVII, which reads:

Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people

through initiative upon petition of at least twelve per centum of the registered voters therein,
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
The attempt to use this method in 1997 was struck down by the Supreme Court in
Santiago v. COMELEC for lack of the necessary implementing law. The above-quoted
provision, it held, was not self-executing, and Rep. Act No. 6735 provided for local initiative
required for proposing constitutional changes. This ruling was reiterated in PIRMA v.
COMELEC and definitely ended the attempt to remove the term limits of the President and
the members of Congress in the present charter.
Note: applies only to amendments not to revision of the Constitution.
(2) Ratification
The Constitution provides that any amendment to or revision shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than sixty days nor
later than ninety days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the
constitutional convention or after the certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency
of the petition under Sec. 2.
Constitution and the Courts

 Voting

(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.

 Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry

(1) There must be an actual case or controversy – involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication. The case must not be
moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a
court of justice.
(2) Proper Party
one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
the act complained of. Until and unless such actual or potential injury is established, the
complainant cannot have the legal personality to raise the constitutional question.

Jurisprudence:
 
People v. Vera – the court held that the government of the Philippines was a proper
party to challenge the constitutionality of the Probation Act because, more than any
other, it was the Government itself should be concerned over the validity of its own laws.

Oposa v. Factoran – a number of minors, represented by their parents, sued Sec of

Environment and Natural Resources “ to prevent the misappropriation or impairment” of
Philippine forests “ and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country’s vital life-support
systems and continued rape of Mother earth.” The case was dismissed by the lower court
on the ground inter alia that the plaintiffs were not proper parties. The Supreme Court
reversed through Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., thus:

Petitioners, minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generation yet
unborn. We find no difficulty in rulingthat they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.Their personality to sue in
behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
Earliest Opportunity
must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, such that if it is not raised in the
pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial and if not considered at the trial at cannot be
considered on appeal.

Exceptions:
◦ In criminal cases at any time in the discretion of the court.
◦ In civil cases, at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself.
◦ In every case, except where there is estoppel, at any stage if it involves jurisdiction of
the court.
 
Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question
the reason why the courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a
constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers, which enjoins
upon each department a proper respect for the acts of the other department.

Jurisprudence:
Laurel v. Garcia – The court will not pass upon a constitutional question although
properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground such
as the application of a statute or general law. The same ruling was laid down in Lalican v.
Vergara
 Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality

Orthodox View
Unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been
passed. It is expressed in Article 7 of the Civil Code, providing that “ when the courts declare a
law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall
govern.”

Modern View
The court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal the statute if
it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses recognize at and determines the
rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence.

Jurisprudence:
 
Manila Motors Co. v. Flores - In May 1954, Manila Motor Company filed in the Municipal
Court of Manila a complaint to recover from Manuel T. Flores the amount of P1,047.98 as
chattel mortgage installments which fell due in September 1941. Defendant pleaded
prescription: 1941 to 1954. The complaint was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of First Instance
saw differently, sustaining plaintiff’s contention that the moratorium laws had interrupted the
running of the prescriptive period, and that deducting the time during which said laws were in
operation – three years and eight months1 – the ten year term had not yet elapsed when
complainant sued for collection in May 1954. Wherefore said court ordered the return of the
case to the municipal judge for trial on the merits.
The Fundamental Powers Of The State

 Police Power – the power of the state to regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of general welfare.

 Jurisprudence:

 Stone v. Mississippi – The US Supreme Court holding in part as follows:

All agree that the legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State.
'Irrevocable grants of property and franchises may be made if they do not impair the supreme
authority to make laws for the right government of the State; but no legislature can curtail the
power of its successors to make such laws as they may deem proper in matters of
police.' Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U.S. 645.

No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people
themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of
governmental power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special
exigencies of the moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their
preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the
largest legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than
the power itself. Beer Company v. Massachusetts, supra.
 The contracts which the Constitution protects are those that relate to property rights,
not governmental. It is not always easy to tell on which side of the line which separates
governmental from property rights a particular case is to be put; but in respect to lotteries
there can be no difficulty. They are not, in the legal acceptation of the term, mala in se, but, as
we have just seen, may properly be mademala prohibita.

They are a species of gambling, and wrong in their influences. They disturb the checks
and balances of a well-ordered community. Society built on such a foundation would almost
of necessity bring forth a population of speculators and gamblers, living on the expectation of
what, 'by the casting of lots, or by lot, chance, or otherwise,' might be 'awarded' to them from
the accumulations of others. Certainly the right to suppress them is governmental, to be
exercised at all times by those in power, at their discretion.

Any one, therefore, who accepts a lottery charter does so with the implied
understanding that the people, in their sovereign capacity, and through their properly
constituted agencies, may resume it at any time when the public good shall require, whether it
be paid for or not. All that one can get by such a charter is a suspension of certain
governmental rights in his favor, subject to withdrawal at will.

He has in legal effect nothing more than a license to enjoy the privilege on the terms
named for the specified time, unless it be sooner abrogated by the sovereign power of the
State. It is a permit, good as against existing laws, but subject to future legislative and
constitutional control or withdrawal.
Exercise of the Police Power
Lodged primarily in the national legislature. By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power,
it may also be exercised by the President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking
bodies on all municipal levels including the barangay.

Test of the Police Power

Lawful Subject – the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, that
the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare.

Lawful Means – In Constitutional law, the end does not justify the means. The lawful objective
must be pursued through a lawful method; that is, both the end and the means must be
legitimate.

Eminent Domain
enables the state to forcibly acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for
some intended public use.

Who may Exercise

Lodged primarily in the national legislature, but its execise may be validly delegated to other
governmental entities and, in fact, even to private corporations, like the so-called quasi-public
corporations serving essential public needs or operating public utilities.

Destruction from Necessity

Destruction from necessity cannot require the conversion of the property taken to public use,
nor is there any need for the payment of jus compensation.
Requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain
(1) The expropriator must enter a private property.
(2) The entry must be for more than a monetary period.
(3) The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.
(4) The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected.
(5) The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Power of Taxation – the State is able to demand from the members of society their proportionate
share or contribution in the maintenance of the government.

Equal Protection and Taxation

Taxation is subject to the general requirements of the equal protection clause. It is provided in
the Constitution “the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.”

This should be distinguished from equality in taxation, which simply means that the tax shall be
strictly proportional to the relative value of the property.

Double Taxation

There is double taxation when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing
jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
Due Process of Law
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.”

Any government act that militates against the ordinary norms of justice or fair play is
considered an infraction of the great guaranty of due process; and this is true whether the
denial involves violation merely of the procedure prescribed by the law or affects the very
validity of the law itself.

In Villegas v. Hiu Chong, the Supreme Court annulled as confiscatory a municipal

ordinance prohibiting the construction on residential land of any building that might
obstruct the view of the public plaza from the highway.

Life – the enjoyment by the individual of all God-Given faculties that can make his
life worth living.

Liberty – A person is free to act but he may exercise his rights only in such manner
as not to injure the rights of other.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
 
Criminal Due Process
Art. III Sec. 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for 2 Criminal Offense without due process of
Law

Requisites of double Jeopardy

(1) Valid complaint or information
(2) Competent Court
(3) Defendant had pleaded
(4) Previously acquitted or convicted on was dismissed / terminated without his express consent

Doctrine of Supervising Event

Accused maybe prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of
the first offense under which he may be charged or convicted.

Freedom of Expression
Art. III, Sec. 4, No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Two Elements
(1) Freedom from restraint or censorship
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
MAJOR CRITERIA
(1) Clear and Present danger rule
(2) Dangerous tendency doctrine
(3) Balance – of – Interest Test

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Thus, in Art. III, Sec. 2, of the Constitution, it is provided:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
 to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
To bolster these rules, Article III, Section 3(2) also provides:
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT

(1) It must be based upon probable cause.
(2) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
(3) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
(4) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
 
“ THE STATE is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently
occupying a fixed territory, and possessed of an independent government organized for
political ends to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”
 
Elements
The essential elements of a State are people, territory, government and sovereignty.
 
 
Government
Government is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.

Functions
The government performs two kinds of functions, to wit, the constituent And the ministrant.
1. The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence
and robbery;
2. The fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and
children;
3. The regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property and the
determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime;
4. The determination of contractual rights between individuals;
5. The definition and punishment of crimes;
6. The administration of justice in civil case;
7. The administration of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens; and
8. The dealings of the State with foreign powers; the preservation of the State from external
danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interest.

Ministrant functions are those undertaken to advance the general interest of

society, such as public works, public charity and regulation of trade and industry. This
functions are merely optional. Significantly, though, it is the performance of ministrant
functions that distinguishes the paternalistic government from the merely
individualistic government, which is concerned only with the basic function of
maintaining peace and order.
Doctrine of Parens Patrae
One of the important tasks of the government is to act for the State as paren patriae or
guardian of the rights of the people. In the case of Government of the Philippine Islands v.
Monte de Piedad, contributions were collected during the Spanish regime for the relief of the
victims of an earthquake but part of the money was never distributed and instead was deposited
with the defendant bank. In an action for its recovery filed later by the government, the
defendant questioned the competence of the plaintiff, contending that the suit could be
instituted only by the intended beneficiaries themselves or by their heirs. The Supreme Court
rejected this view and upheld the right of the government to file the case for the State as parens
patriae in representation of the legitimate claimants.

De Jure and De Facto Governments

De jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has
been withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. De
Facto government, on the other hand, is a government of fact, that is it actually exercises power
or control but without legal title.

Government of the Philippines

The Government of the Philippines is Defined as “the corporate entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the
contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city,
municipal or barangay subdivisions or other form of local government.
THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
THE CONSTITUTION declares, rather superfluously, that “the State may not be sued
without its consent.” This provisions is merely a recognition of the sovereign character of the
State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule insulating it from the jurisdiction of the
courts of justice.

Waiver of Immunity
Although the doctrine of State immunity is sometimes called “the royal prerogative of
dishonesty,” it must be observe in fairness that the parties that may have legitimate claims
against it. The principle fortunately has a built-in qualification: the State may, if it so desires,
divest itself of its sovereign immunity and thereby voluntarily open itself to suit. In fine, the
State may be sued if it gives its consent.

It is gratifying that the exception appears now to be the general policy, with the result
that the filing of suits against the State has become less difficult than before.
Forms of Consent

The consent of the State to be sued may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent
may be manifested either through a general law or special law. Implied consent is given
when the State itself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract.

The general law providing for the standing consent of the State to be sued is Act No. 3083,
declaring that, “the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be
sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied,
which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.”

Under CA No. 327 as amended by P.D. No. 1445, a claim against the Government must first
be filed with the Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection
of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to he Supreme Court or
certiorari and in effect sue the State with its consent.

An example of the second kind of express consent is the special law enacted by the
Philippine Legislature authorizing an individual to sue the Philippine Government for
injuries he has sustained when his motorcycle collided with a Government ambulance.

The express consent of the State to be sued must be embodied in a duly enacted statute and
may not be given by a mere counsel of the government, as held in Republic vs. Purisima. In
this case, the waiver made by the lawyer for the Rice and Corn Administration, as agency of
the government, was held by the Supreme Court as not binding upon the State.
Suit Against Government Agencies
 
Where suit is filed not against the government itself or its officials but against one of its
entities, it must be ascertained whether or not the State, as the principal that may ultimately
be held liable, has given its consent to be sued. This ascertainment will depend in the first
instance on whether the government agency impleaded is incorporated or unincorporated.
 
An incorporated agency has a charter on its own that invests it with a separate juridical
personality, like the SSS, the UP and the City of Manila. By contrast, the unincorporated
agency is so called because it has no separate juridical personality but is merged in the
general machinery of he government, like DOJ, Bureau of Mines and the Government
Printing Office.
 
 
Exemption from Legal Requirements
 
When the State litigates, either directly or through its authorize officers, it is not
required to put up a bond for damages, or an appeal bond, since it can be assumed that it is
always solvent. Neither it can be asked to pay the legal fees prescribed in the Rules of
Court or the costs of the suit. Interest is also not chargeable against it except when it has
expressly stipulated to pay it or when interest is allowed by an act of the legislature or in
eminent domain cases where damages sustained by the owner take the form of interest at
the legal rate. It has also been held that the statutes of limitation do not run against the
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE AND STATE POLICIES

 
Republicanism
 
Section 1 of Article II provides: The Philippines is a democratic and republican State,
Sovereignty reside in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
 
A republic is a representative government, a government run by and for the people. It is
not a pure democracy where people govern themselves directly. The essence of republicanism
is representation and renovation, the selection by the citizenry of a corps of public
functionaries who derive their mandate from the people and act on their behalf, servicing for a
limited period only, after which they are replaced or retained at the option of their principal.
Obviously, a republican government is a responsible government whose officials hold
and discharge their positions as a public trust and shall, according to the Constitution, “at all
times be accountable to the people” they are sworn to serve. The purpose of a republican
government, it is almost needless to state, is the promotion of the common welfare according
to the will of the people themselves.
The Incorporation Clause
 
Section 2 provides: “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.”
 
Every State is, by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own laws. This
is known as the doctrine of incorporation. By virtue thereof, and particularly since it is affirmed in
our Constitution, our Supreme Court has applied the rules of international law in the decision of a
number of cases notwithstanding that such rules had been previously converted to statutory
enactments.
 
“Sec. 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and the
right to self-determination.”
 
And with Section 8, declaring that:
 
“Sec. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of
freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.”
 
The author believes that the inclusion of these provisions only serves to underline our fear of
foreign domination and achieves not much more, considering that the first provision goes without
saying and the second is so ambiguously worded that it could be interpreted any which way.
Separation of Church and State
Section 6 reiterates that “the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” This
is a reproduction of Article XV, Section 15, of the 1973 Constitution.
The separation of Church and State was originally and quite adequately, expressed in the
bill of rights providing that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is now rendered more emphatic by the said Section 6,
which says that the separation shall be “inviolable.”
The rationale of the rule is summed up in the familiar saying, “Strong fences makes
good neighbors.” The idea is to delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus
avoid encroachment by one against the other because of misunderstanding of the limits of
their respective exclusive jurisdictions. The demarcation line calls on the entities to “render
therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God’s.

Supremacy of Civilian Authority

Section 3 provides: “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The
Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and State. Its goal is to secure
the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”
 
Local Autonomy
 
The policy of local autonomy, which was not specifically mentioned in the 1935
Constitution but was dignified into a constitutional principle by the 1973 charter is affirmed in
Section 25, which provides: “The State ensure the autonomy of local government.”
 
 This principle is fleshed out in Article X, entitled “Local Government,” and the Local
Government Code.
The strengthening of the local governments is based upon the Jeffersonian view that
“municipal corporations are the small republics from which the great one derives its
strength.” The belief is shared in this county that vitalization of the local government unit
will enable its inhabitants to develop their resources and thereby contribute to the progress of
the whole nation. More importantly, they will acquire a deepened sense of involvement that
will encourage them to participate more actively in the direction of public affairs as members
of the body politic.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION of powers was modified under the 1973
Constitution with the establishment of a semi-parliamentary government that made the
legislature subordinate in many respects to the President, who was even vested with the
ultimate power of dissolving it. Under the new Constitution, the traditional concept of the
doctrine has been restored, but with several significant modifications.

The three major departments of the government have been maintained, and so have the
three constitutional commissions established earlier under the past charters. Other
independent bodies has been created. By and large, the separation of the principal powers has
been preserved. The judiciary, regarded as the weakest of the three branches, has been
considerably strengthened with the conferment on it of additional and important powers. In
case of the Political departments, one will observe a lessening of the powers of the executive
and the corresponding increase in the authority of the legislature., inspired presumably by our
recent experiences under the Marcos authoritarianism.
Purposes
The doctrine of separation of powers is intended to prevent a concentration of authority
in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its
exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. More specifically, according to
Justice Laurel, the doctrine is intended to secure action, to forestall over-action, to prevent
despotism and to obtain efficiency.

To achieve this purpose, the legislature is generally limited to the enactment of laws
and may not enforce or apply them; the executive to the enforcement of laws and may not
enact or apply them; and the judiciary to the application of laws and may not enact or enforce
them.
 
Checks and Balances
 
What makes the doctrine of separations of powers especially workable is the corollary
system of checks and balances, by means of which one department is allowed to resist
encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the
other departments. The exercise of this authority is not itself an arrogation in as much as it is
the Constitution itself that provides for this system of counteraction. The theory is that the
ends of the government are better achieved through the exercise by its agencies of only the
powers assigned to them, subject to reversal in proper cases by those constitutionally
authorized.
 
The Role of the Judiciary
  While it is the judiciary which sees to it that the constitutional distribution of powers
among the several departments of the government is respected and observed, this does not
mean that it is superior to the other departments. The correct view is that when the Supreme
Court mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a coordinate
body, what id upholding is not its own supremacy but the supremacy of the Constitution.
 
Justiciable and Political Questions
Assuming then that the proper repository of the power in question has been ascertained
on the basis of a valid constitutional grant, is the power of the judiciary to review official
action terminated? Not necessarily, because it could be that the act in question had not been
performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the Constitution.
 
If, say, there is no compliance with a voting requirement prescribed by the fundamental
law, as where a statute granting a tax exemption is enacted by less than a majority of all the
members of the Congress, or when an appointee of the President does not possess the
prescribed qualifications, the courts will have jurisdiction to intervene. The questions
involved here are justiciable. The judiciary in such cases would not be encroaching upon the
exclusive functions of another department as it is the particular role of the courts to ensure
proper observance of the norms of action prescribed by the Constitution.
 
DELEGATION OF POWERS
Corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of
powers. The rule is potestas delegate non delegri potest-what has been delegated cannot be
delegated. It is based upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not
only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own
judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. A further delegation of such
power, unless permitted by the sovereign power, would constitute a negation of this duty in
violation of the trust reposed in the delegate mandated to discharge it directly.
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of
the government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of
many instances when its delegation is permitted. The occasion are rare when executive or
judicial powers are exercised outside the departments to which they legally pertain. In the
case of the legislative, however, such instances have become more and more frequent, if not
necessary. This has led to the observation that the delegation of legislative power has become
the rule and its non-delegation the exception.
 
Permissible Delegation
Delegation of legislative powers is permitted in the following cases:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President.
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President.
(3) Delegation to the people at large.
(4) Delegation to local government.
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
(1) Tariff Powers
“Sec.28(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 and imposts, within the
framework of the national development program of the Government.”
The President is granted stand-by or flexible tariff powers in the Tariff and Customs
code conformably to above provision. The reason for this delegation is the necessity, not to
say expediency, of giving the chief executive the authority to act immediately on certain
matters affecting the national economy lest delay result in hardship to the people. It is
recognized that the legislative process is much too cumbersome for the speedy solution of
some economic problems, especially those relating to foreign trade.
 
(2) Emergency Powers
Sec. 23(2). In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon its
next adjournment.”
In times of war or other national emergency, it is not likely that a quorum can be
convened in the Congress to enable it to do business. Assuming, such quorum, there is still
the decisiveness and delay inherent in the lawmaking process that may hamper effective
solutions of the problems caused by the emergency. Such problems, needless to say, must be
solved within the shortest possible time to prevent them from aggravating the difficulties of
the nation.
 
 When emergency powers are delegated to the president, he becomes in effect a
constitutional dictator. But in strict legal theory, there is no total abdication of legislative
authority in his favor. The conferment itself is supposed to be subject to certain restrictions
and requirements intended to make him only an agent rather than a replacement of the
legislature.
 
The condition for the vesture of emergency powers in the President are the following:
(1) There must be war or other national emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.
(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe.
(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared
by the Congress.
 
(3) Delegation to the People
According to Cooley, “the prevailing doctrine in the court appears to be, that except in
those cases where, by the Constitution, the people have expressly reserved to themselves a
power of decision, the function of legislation cannot be exercised by them., even to the extent
of accepting or rejecting a law which has been framed for their consideration. The people
have voluntarily surrendered that power when they adopted the Constitution. The government
of the State is democratic, but it is a representative of democracy, and in passing general laws
the people act only through their representative in the legislature. Such reference of the law to
the people at large for the acceptance or rejection is plain surrender of the law-making
power.”
(4) Delegation to Local Governments
 
Another accepted exception to the rule against delegation of legislative powers is
delegation to local governments. This traditional exception is based on the recognition that
local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national making body on matter of purely
local concerned and are therefore in a better position to enact the necessary and appropriate
legislation thereon.
 
(5) Delegation to Administrative Bodies
 
The reasons given earlier for the delegation of legislative powers in general are
particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With the proliferation of specialized
activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and
more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the “power of subordinate legislation,”
as it is called.
 
 
Test of Delegation
 
(1) The Completeness Test

Ideally, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except enforce it. If there are gaps in law that will prevent its enforcement
unless they are first filled, the delegate will then have been given the opportunity to step
into the shoes of the legislature and to exercise a discretion essentially legislative in
order to repair the omissions. This is invalid delegation.
 
(2) The sufficient Standard Test
 
Even if the law does not spell out in detail the limits of the delegates authority, it
may be sustained if the delegation of legislative power is made subject to a sufficient
standard. A sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating circumstances under which it
is to be pursued and effected. The purpose of sufficient standard is to prevent a total
transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate.
 THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
 
“The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist
of the Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.”
 
The Congress also discharges powers of a non-legislative nature, among them the
canvass of the presidential elections, the declaration of the existence of a state of war, the
confirmation of amnesties and (through the Commission on Appointments) presidential
appointments, the amendment or revision of the Constitutions, and impeachment.

The Senate
(1) Composition
Section 2 states that “the Senate shall be composed of twenty-four senators who shall
be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.”

(2) Qualifications
The qualifications for membership in the Senate are laid down in Section 3 as follows:
“No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and,
on , the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of election.”
 
 According to Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution, “natural-born citizens are those
who are citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph (3), Section 1 thereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.”
 
(3) Term
The term of the members of the Senate is governed by the following provisions in
Articles VI and XVIII respectively:

“Sec.4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.”
“Sec.2. The Senators, Members of the House of representatives, and the local officials
first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.”
“Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest
number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years.”

It should be noted, however, that as desirable as experience as may be, the constitution
specifically provides in Article VI, Section 4, that :

“No Senator shall serve for more than two 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.”
The House of Representatives
 
(1) Composition
 
A new composition is prescribed for the House of Representatives consisting of two
kinds of members, to wit, the district representative and the party-list representative. The
former is elected directly and personally, from the territorial unit he is seeking to represent.
The latter, on the other hand, is chosen indirectly, through the party he represents, which is
the one voted for by the electorate. The party list system is an innovation of the 1987
Constitution and has yet to be proved for wisdom and efficacy.
 
The pertinent provisions are the following:
 
“Sec.5. (1) The House of representative shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations.
 
 “(2) The party-list representatives shall continue twenty per centum of the total
membership of the House of representatives. For three consecutive terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled,
as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, youth and such other sectors as maybe provided by law,
except the religious sector.
 
“(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact
and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand or
each province, shall have at least one representative.
 
“(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.”

The Party-list Representatives

 
The House of Representatives is composed not only of the regular district
representatives but also of the party-list representatives as provided for in the 1987
Constitution. The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total membership of
the body, including such representatives.
 
The rules for the selection of the party-list representatives are embodied in R.A. No.
7941, which was enforced for the first time in the elections held in 1998.
Qualifications
Where applicable, the same observations earlier made regarding the qualifications of
the Senators are repealed for the following qualifications of the members of the House of
Representatives:
“Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of representatives unless he is a
natural born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the lection, is at least twenty five
years of age, able to read and write, and except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, resident thereof for a period of not less than
one year immediately preceding the day of the election.”
 
Term
The term of the House of representatives under the Commonwealth Constitution was
four years and that of the member of the Batasang Pambansa under the 1973 charter was six
years. In the new House of Representatives, the term of the members is fixed as follows:
 
“Sec. 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon of the thirtieth day
of June next following their election.
 
“No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three
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.”
Parliamentary Immunities
“Sec. 11. A senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six 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.”
(1) Privilege from Arrest
(2) Privilege of Speech and Debate
Conflict of Interest
The following is a new provision intended to ensure the probity and objectivity of the
members of Congress:
 
“Sec. 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 authors.

Incompatible and Forbidden Offices

“Sec. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, 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.
Inhibitions and Disqualifications
 
The rules embodied in the Commonwealth and 1973 Constitutions on
parliamentary inhibitions and disqualifications have been much simplified with the
following rewritten provision in the new charter.

“Sec. 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 any 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 be called upon to act on account of his
office.”
 
Journals
 
“(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 the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
present, be entered in the Journal.
“Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.”
POWERS OF THE CONGRESS
“Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws
enacted by Congress. The former mat not interfere in the performance of the legislative
powers of the latter except in the exercise of the veto power. He may not defeat
legislative enactments by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement
providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by such laws.”

Procedure
The procedure in the approval of bills is briefly as follows:
A bill is introduced by any member of the House of representative or the senate
except for some measures that must originate only in the former chamber.

The first reading involves only a reading of the number and title of the measure
and its referral by the Senate President or the Speaker to the Proper committee for
study.
The bill maybe “killed” in the committee or it may be recommended for approval,
with or without amendments, sometimes after public hearings are first held thereon. If
there are other bills of the same nature or purpose, they may all be consolidated into one
bill under common authorship or as a committee bill.
Once reported out, the bill shall be calendared for second reading. It is at this
stage that the bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon and amended when
desired. The second reading is the most important stage in the passage of a bill.
 The bill as approved on the second reading is printed I its final form and copies thereof
are distributed at least three days before the third reading. On third reading, the members
merely register their votes and explain them if they are allowed by the rules. No further
debate is allowed.

Once the bill passes third reading, it is sent to other chamber, where it will also undergo
the three readings. If there are differences between the versions approved by the two
chambers, a conference committee representing both houses will draft a compromise measure
that if ratified by the Senate and the House of Representatives will then be submitted to the
President for his consideration.

The bill is enrolled when printed as finally approved by the Congress, thereafter
authenticated by the signatures of the Senate of the President, Speaker, and the Secretaries of
their respective chambers, and approved by the President.
Origin of Bills
The restoration of bicameralism has also revived the following provision appearing in the
1935 Constitution:

“Sec. 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 or concur with amendments.”

An appropriation bill is one the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize
the release of funds from the public treasury.

A revenue bill is one that levies taxes and raises funds for the government, while a tariff
bill specifies the rates or duties to be imposed on imported articles.

A bill increasing the public debt is illustrated by one floating bonds for public
subscription redeemable after a certain period.

A bill of local application is one involving purely local or municipal matters, like a
charter of a city.

Private bills are illustrated by a bill granting bonorary citizenship to a distinguished

foreigner.
Approval of bills
The rules on the approval of bills are found in Article VI, Section 27, providing as follows:

“Sec. 27.  (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it
and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter
the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it
shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become
a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President
shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days
after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he
does not object.”
The above section provides for three methods by which a bill may become a law, to wit:

(1) When the President signs it;

(2) When the President vetoes it but the veto is overridden by two-thirds vote of
all the members of each House; and

(3) When the President does not act upon the measure within thirty days after it
shall have been presented to him.
 
By actually signing a bill presented to him, the President identifies himself with it
and indicates his approval of its purposes and provisions.

The President may disapprove or veto a measure upon any ground sufficient for
him, as where he considers it unconstitutional or merely inefficacious or unwise. In
every case, he should, in returning the measure to the House of Origin, indicate his
objections thereto in what is known as “veto message” so that the same can be studied
by the members for possible overriding of his veto. Two-thirds of each House will be
sufficient to invalidate the veto and convert the bill into law over the President’s
objections. On the other hand, the Congress may agree on the President’s objections
and decide to revise the measure as he suggests.
Legislative Inquiries
“Sec. 21. The Senate 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
respected.
It has already been remarked that the power of legislative investigation may be implied
from the express power of legislation and does not itself have to be expressly granted. If the
above rule has been incorporated in the Constitution, it was not so much to authorize as in
fact to limit the conduct of legislative inquiries.
The reason was that in the past this power was much abused by some legislators who
used it for illegitimate ends ot to browbeat or intimidate witnesses, usually for grandstanding
purposes only. There were also times when the subject of the inquiry was purely private in
nature and therefore outside the scope of the powers of the Congress.

The Power of Appropriation

Article VI, Section 29(1), of the Constitution provides that “ No money shall be
paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” While
“law” as here used may refer to constitutional appropriations like the grant of a
P300,000.00 salary to the President, it is more often supposed to denote statutes enacted
by the lawmaking body. Funds are always needed for the support of public projects;
money is the motive force and lubricant of the machinery of government. Hence, the
power of the purse is one of the most important prerogatives of the congress.
Appropriation Denied

An appropriation measure may be defined as a statute the primary and specific purpose
of which is to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury, e.g., the public works
act and the general appropriations act. A law creating an office and providing funds therefore
is not an appropriation law since the main purpose is not to appropriate funds but to create
the office.

Appropriation measures maybe classified into general and special. The general
appropriations law passed annually is intended to provide for the financial operations of the
entire government during one fiscal period whereas a special appropriation is designed for a
specific purpose, such as the creation of a fund for the relief of typhoon victims.

Finally, it should be stressed that by specific permission in the Constitution and as an

exception to the above-stated rule, it is provided in Article XIV, section 3(3), that:

“If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations bill for the ensuring fiscal year, the general appropriation law of the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.”
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Executive Power
Article VII, Section 1, reproduces the original rule in the 1935 Constitution that:
“The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.”
Executive power is briefly described as the power to enforce and administer the laws, but it is
actually more than this. In the exercise of this power, the President of the Philippines assumes
a plenitude of authority, and the corresponding awesome responsibility, that make him,
indeed, the most influential person in the land. The potentials of executive powers are
tremendous-for good or evil.

Qualifications
Qualifications are prescribed for public office to ensure the proper performance of
powers and duties. In the case of the highest office in the land, Article VII, Section 2,
provides as follows:

“Sec. 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 forty years of age on
the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.”
Term
The term of the President (and the Vice-President) is fixed by Section 4 as follows:
“The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day
of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall
not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served
as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any
time.”.

The Vice President

The new provisions on the office of the Vice-President are as follows:
“Sec. 4. 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.”
“Sec. 4(2) No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.”
“Sec. 9.  Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the
term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.”
Presidential Succession
There are two sets of rules on presidential successions, one found in Section 7 on
vacancies occurring before the President’s term and the other in Section 8 on vacancies
occurring afterwards. The two provisions read as follows:
“Sec. 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the
beginning of their terms.

If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until
the President-elect shall have qualified.

If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President
until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall
have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.

Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or
where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in
case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a
President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as
President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of
death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph.”
 POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
 
The Appointing Power
Appointment maybe defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of
an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. Although intrinsically executive
and therefore pertaining mainly to the President, the appointing power maybe exercised by the
legislature and by the judiciary, as well as the Constitutional Commissions, over their own
respective personnel.
An appointment maybe made verbally but is usually done in writing through what is
called the commission. The commission is the written evidence of an appointment.
 
The Constitution vests the appointing power in the President as follows:
 
“Sec. 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain,
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by
law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or
in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until
disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.”
 Both the temporary appointment and the designation are not subject to confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. Such confirmation, if given erroneously, will not make the
incumbent a permanent appointee.

There are now six categories of officials who are subject to the appointing power of the
President, viz.:
(1) The heads of the executive departments.
(2) Ambassadors, other public ministers and consul.
(3) Officers of the Armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
(4) Those other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution.
(5) All other officers of the government whose appointments are not provided for by
law.
(5) Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
 
The “Take-Care” Clause
The power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed makes a President a dominant
figure in the administration of the government. The energy or indifference with which he
discharges this power will determine the measure of his success as Law Enforcer.
 
The law is supposed to enforce includes the Constitution itself, statutes, judicial
decisions, administrative rules and regulations and municipal ordinances, as well as treaties
entered into by our government.
The Military Power
Tremendous and extraordinary authority is reposed in the President by the following
provision in Article VII:
 
“Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within
forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
 The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate
its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil
courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected
with, invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
 THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Judicial Power

The vesture and definition of the judicial power are effected by the following
rewriting in Article VIII of the original provision appearing in both the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions:.

“Section 1. The judicial power 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.”
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISIONS
 
There are three Constitutional Commissions, to wit, the Civil Service Commission, the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. The Civil Service Commission used
to be a statutory body until it was elevated to its present status by the 1973 Charter. The
commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit which was originally called the
General Auditing Office, were originally provided for under the 1935 Constitution.
 
To ensure the independence of these bodies, the following guarantees are prescribed in the new
Constitution:
(1) These bodies are created by the Constitution itself and may not be abolished by
statute.
(2) Each of them is expressly described in the Constitution as “independent”
(3) Each of them is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be withdrawn or
reduced by statute.
(4) The chairmen and members of all of these Commissions may not be removed from
office except by impeachment.
(5) The chairmen and members of all of these Commissions are given the fairly long
term of seven years.
(6) The terms of office of the chairmen and members of all of these commission are
staggered in such a way to lessen the opportunity for appointment of the majority of the body
by the same President.
 (7) The chairmen and members of all of these Commissions may not reappointed or
appointed in an acting capacity.

(8) The salaries of the chairmen and members of all of these commission are
relatively high and may not be decreased during their continuance in office.

(9) The Commissions all enjoy fiscal autonomy.

(10) Each Commission may promulgate its own procedural rules.

(11) The chairmen and members of all of these Commissions are subject to certain
disqualifications and inhibitions calculated to strengthen their integrity.

(12) Finally, the Constitutional Commissions are allowed to appoint their own
officials and employees in accordance with the Civil service Law.
 ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Article XI of the New constitution begins with a platitude, to wit:

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

Acknowledging the possibility of men in public office betraying their trust to the
prejudice of the people, the Constitution provides for a special process of removal known as
impeachment. Impeachment has been defined as a method of national inquest into the conduct
of public men. Corwin describes it as “the most formidable weapon in the arsenal of
democracy.” Less dramatically viewed, it is an extraordinary means of removal exercised by
the legislature over a selected number of officials, the purpose being to ensure the highest care
in their indictment and conviction and the imposition of special penalties in case of a finding of
guilt, taking into account the degree or nature of the offense committed and the high status of
wrongdoers.
Impeachable Officers
The impeachable officers are the President of the Philippines, the Vice-president, the members
of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional commission and the Ombudsman. This list
is exclusive and may not be increased and reduced by legislative enactment. The power to impeach is
essentially a non legislative prerogative and can be exercised by the Congress only within the limits
of authority conferred upon it by Constitution. This authority may not be expanded by the grantee
itself even if motivated by the desire to strengthen the security of tenure of other officials of the
government.
 
Grounds for impeachment
The grounds for impeachment is also enumerated in the constitution in an exclusive manner, to
wit: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other high crimes, graft and corruption, or
betrayal of public trust.

“Culpable violation of the Constitution” is wrongful, intentional or willful disregard or flouting

of the fundamental law. Obviously, the act must be deliberate and motivated by bad faith to constitute
a ground for impeachment. Mere mistakes in the proper constructions of the Constitution, on which
student of law may sincerely differ, cannot be considered a valid ground for impeachment.

“Treason” is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the
Philippines, levies war against it or adheres to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

“Bribery” is committed by any public officer who shall agree to perform an act, whether or not
constituting a crime, or refrain from doing an act which he is officially required to do in connection
with the performance of his official duties., in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by him personally or the mediation of another or who shall accept gifts offered to him by
reason of his office.
Katarungang Pambarangay

The primordial objective of the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, is to reduce the

number of court litigations and prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice which
has been brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts. To attain this
objective, Section 412(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 requires the parties to undergo a
conciliation process before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat as a precondition to filing
a complaint in court, thus:

Section 412. Conciliation --- (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complain in Court. ---
No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of
the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for
adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon
chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat
chairman. (Lumbuan vs. Ronquillo, G. R. No. 155713, May 5, 2006)
 Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the order
dated 2 July 1993 of public respondent Judge Maximo C. Contreas of Branch 61 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Makati, Metro Manila, denying the petitioner’s motion to
dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 145233 and 145234 for slight physical injuries. The motion to
dismiss is based on the failure of the private respondents, as the offended parties therein, to
comply with Section 6 of P.D. No. 1508 and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure requiring prior referral of disputes to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the proper
barangay.

At the outset, it must be stated that were it not for the importance of the issue to be
resolved in the light of the revised law on katarungang pambarangay provided for in the Local
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) which took effect on 1 January 1992, this Court
would have declined to accept the invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue the
extraordinary writ prayed for. We have already ruled that while it is true that this Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, such
concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which
application therefore may be directed. There is a hierarchy of courts determinative of the venue
of appeals which should also serve as a general determinant of the proper forum for the
application for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for this judicial hierarchy by the
petitioner and her lawyers ought to have led them to file the petition with the proper Regional
Trial Court.

The respondent judge thus acted with graved abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss
Criminal Cases Nos. 145233 and 145234.

Before closing these cases, this Court wishes to emphasize the vital role which the
revised katarungang pambarangay law plays in the delivery of justice at the barangay level, in
promoting peace, stability, and progress therein, and in effectively preventing or reducing
expensive and wearisome litigation. Parties to disputes cognizable by the lupon should, with
sincerity, exhaust the remedies provided by that law, government prosecutors should exercise
due diligence in ascertaining compliance with it, and trial courts should not hesitate to impose
the appropriate sanctions for non-compliance thereof. (Felicidad Uy vs. Hon. Contreras, et. al
GR. No. 111416, Sept 26, 1994)