You are on page 1of 50

ARTICLE VII: Executive Department Sec.

1: President

“The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.”

Sec. 2: Qualifications Natural-born citizen Registered voter Able to read and write At least 40 yrs old on the day of election Resident for at least 10 yrs immediately preceding the election

Sec. 3: Vice-President Same qualifications and term of office as Pres Elected and removed in same manner as Pres May be a member of the Cabinet without need of confirmation

Sec. 4: Election and Term of Office

PRESIDENT – six years without re-election VICE-PRESIDENT – six years, 2 successive terms

Q: If the Vice-President succeeds in the Presidency, is he allowed to run for President in the next election? A: Yes, provided he did not hold the office of the President for more than 4 yrs.

Congress as Board of Canvassers

PROCEDURE: Duly certified returns from each province or city shall be transmitted to Congress, directed to the Senate President Upon receipt of certificate of canvass, the Senate President shall, not later than 30 days after election day, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of reps in a joint public session Congress shall determine the due authenticity and due execution of the certificate canvass and start canvassing the votes Congress shall proclaim the candidate having the highest number of votes In case of tie, Congress shall vote separately and the candidate having the majority votes of all members of both Houses shall be proclaimed the winner

Role of Congress in Presidential Election is to canvass the votes (See Barbers vs. Comelec)

Supreme Court en banc as Presidential Electoral Tribunal Sole judge of all contents relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose


No pre-proclamation controversy is allowed against Presidential or VicePresidential candidates, EXCEPT: the correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns or State of Votes Only the candidate who garners the second or third highest number of votes may question the proclamation of a winner.

COMELEC has no jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies in presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional elections; Correction of Manifest Error in the Statement of Votes may be filed directly with COMELEC en banc

Sandoval vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133842, Jan. 26, 2000

The case involves the elective office of congressman of one legislative district, which is contested on the ground of manifest error arising from the non-inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, thus making the same incomplete.

While the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies, the exception to the general rule can be found under sec. 15 of RA 7166 which prohibits candidates in the presidential, vice-presidential, senatorial and congressional elections from filing pre-proclamation cases.

The prohibition aims to avoid delay in the proclamation of the winner in the election, which delay might result in a vacuum in these sensitive posts. The law, nonetheless, provides an exception to the exception. The second sentence of Sec. 15 allows the filing of petitions for correction of manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns even in elections for president, vice-president and members of the House for the simple reason that the correction of manifest error will not prolong the process of canvassing nor delay the proclamation of the winner in the election.

Correction of a manifest error in the Statement of Votes may be filed directly with the COMELEC en banc (rule 27, sec. 5, 1993 Rules of the COMELEC). This is another exception to the rule that pre-proclamation controversies must first be heard and decided by a division of the Commission.

In determination of the case, the COMELEC must observe due process of law since this involves the exercise of its quasi-judicial power.

Protestant cannot be substituted by widow in case of death of the former pending resolution of election protest; Substitute must be a real party in interest

Poe vs. Arroyo, PET Case No. 002, March 29, 2005


GMA and FPJ both ran for President in the May 10, 2004 elections. GMA obtained the highest number of votes, with FPJ at second place. On July 23, 2004, after GMA took her Oath of Office, FPJ seasonably filed an election protest but while case was pending, FPJ died of cardio-pulmonary arrest. Mrs. FPJ, through counsel, filed a petition for substitution, substituting herself for her deceased husband.

ISSUE: Whether or not the window of a deceased candidate is a proper party in an election contest


...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. It envisioned a scenario where, if the declared winner had not been truly voted upon by the electorate, the candidate who received that 2nd or 3rd highest number of votes would be the legitimate beneficiary in a successful election contest.

Suppletory application of the Rules of Court

Rule 3, Sec. 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court. This rule allows substitution by a legal representative. It can be gleaned from the citation of this rule that movant/intervenor seeks to appear before this Tribunal as the legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed by said Sec. 16. However, in our application of this rule to an election contest, we have every time ruled that a public office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. Thus, we consistently rejected substation by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant dies during the pendency of the protest. In Vda. De De Mesa vs. Mencias, we recognized substitution upon the death of the protestee but denied substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the

real parties in interest. Similarly, in the later case of De la Victoria vs. Commission on Elections, we struck down the claim of the surviving spouse and children of the protestee to the contested office for the same reason. Even in analogous cases before other electoral tribunals, involving substitution by the widow of a deceased protestant, in cases where the widow is not a real party in interest, we denied substitution by the wife or heirs.

Who may question: Real Party in Interest

...We have held...that while the right to a public office is personal and exclusive to the public officer, an election protest is not purely personal and exclusive to the protestant or to the protestee such that the death of either would oust the court of all authority to continue the protest proceedings. Hence, we have allowed substitution and intervention by only by a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, and the party who is entitled to the avails of the suit. In Vda. De De Mesa vs. Mencias and Lomugdang vs. Javier, we permitted substitution by the vice-mayor since the vicemayor is a real party in interest considering that if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of the mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected cannot assume office. In contrast, herein movant/intervenor, Mrs. FPJ, herself denies any claim to the august office of President. Thus, given the circumstances of this case, we can conclude that protestant’s widow is not a real party in interest to this election protest.

Effect of resumption of old post on the election protest

Santiago vs. Ramos, PET Case No. 001, Feb. 13, 1996

In assuming the office of Senator, the protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her election protests, thereby making it moot.

The term of office of the Senators elected in the 8 May 1995 election is six years, the first three of which coincides with the last three years of the term of the President elected in the 11 May 1992 synchronized elections. The latter would be Protestant Santiago’s term if she would succeed in proving in the instant protest that she was

those provided in the Rules of Court which apply in a suppletory character.000. in the language of the Protestant. an election protest may be summarily dismissed. regardless of the public policy and public interest implications thereof. thereby enhancing the all-to crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery.527 precincts of the designated three pilot areas. may likewise be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the answer. (2) The petition is filed beyond the periods provided in Rules 14 and 15 hereof.. In assuming the office of Senator then. Moreover.the true winner in the 1992 elections. is not paid within 10 days after the filing of the protest. in its discretion.g. The protestant abandoned her election protest when she waived the revision of the remaining ballots and failed to inform the tribunal whether she still intends to present additional evidence after the completion of the revision of the ballots from the pilot areas This Tribunal cannot close its eyes to the fact that the Protestant has decided to waive the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 4. in the language of Moraleja. (3) The filing fee is not paid within the periods provided for in these Rules. This is an unabashed reversal from her original stand in her Motion and Manifestation dated 18 October 1993. (4) The cash deposit. “materially affect the result of the representative sample of the ballot boxes so far . or the first P 100. hold a preliminary hearing on such grounds. After which.017 precincts out of the 17. then it must be.” Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot the instant protest. the Tribunal may. the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential election. if an election be dismissed on technical grounds. It must also be stressed that under the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. abandoned her “determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. the Protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn this protest. or whether the unrevised ballots from said areas would not. this Tribunal declared in its resolution of 21 October 1993: After deliberating on the foregoing pleadings and the arguments of the parties. for a decidedly stronger reason. on the following grounds: (1) The petition is insufficient in form and substance. or at the very least. At this stage of the proceedings in this case it cannot be reasonably determined whether the revised ballots are “considerable” enough to establish a trend either in favor of or against the Protestant as would justify an appropriate action contemplated in Rule 61 of the Rules of the Tribunal. the Tribunal rules for the Protestant insofar as the revision of the remaining ballot boxes from her pilot areas are concerned. Taking this into account. e. if it has become moot due to its abandonment by the Protestant. and against the immediate application of Rule 61 of the Rules of the Tribunal to the Protestee in respect of the Counter-Protest. In sum. and (5) The petition or copies thereof and the annexes thereto filed with the Tribunal are not clearly legible.00 thereof. Other grounds for a motion to dismiss.

if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas she would present evidence in connection therewith. and B. she still intends to present evidence in connection therewith.however. we resolved therein to: A. Sec. Until the present. the proper time to raise the objections to the ballot boxes and its contents would be during the revision stage. is nothing short of a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so. 6: Privilege and Salary PRIVILEGES: Official residence (Malacanang Palace) Immunity from suit – not provided in the Constitution. and if such revisions are not yet completed. to prevent distraction from performance of duties SALARY Fixed by law Cannot be decreased during tenure (actual time he held office) and cannot be increased during his term (only upon expiration of the term) Shall not receive during tenure any other emolument from Government or any other source . Consequently. to coordinate with the appropriate tribunal or court in which such other election protests are pending and which have already obtained custody of the ballot boxes and started revision with the end in view of either seeking expeditious revisions in such other election protests or obtaining the custody of the ballot boxes and related election documents and paraphernalia for their immediate delivery to the Tribunal.revised. the Protestant has not informed the Tribunal whether after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas. This failure then.” As to the 1. ORDER the revision of the remaining unrevised ballot boxes enumerated in the aforequoted paragraph A to the 5 October 1995 Resolution and for the purpose to DiRECT the Acting Clerk of Court of the Tribunal to collect said ballot boxes and other election documents and paraphernalia from their respective custodians in the event that their revisions in connection with other election protests in which they are involved have been terminated. within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. REQUIRE the Protestant to inform the Tribunal.300 ballot boxes from Makati.

7 and 8: Assumption of Office and Succession WHEN: before noon of June 30 If President-elect fails to qualify. 11: Acting President GROUND: inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office . VicePresident-elect becomes the President If the President-elect becomes incapacitated temporarily. gets disabled permanently. the Vice-President will assume or act as President If the President. dies. dies or is permanently incapacitated. 9: Vacancy of Vice-Presidency The President shall nominate one from the Senate and the House of Reps who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of the Houses.Sec. is removed from office. of the third day after the vacancy Congress will convene without need of a call and within 7 days enact a law calling for a special election to be held not earlier than 45 days nor later than 60 days from time of such call Sec.m. voting separately Sec. or resigns. the Vice-President becomes the President SUCCESSION IN CASE OF VACANCY: Vice-President Senate President Speaker of the House Sec. the Vice-President-elect will act as President until such a time that the President can assume office If there is failure to elect the president. during his term. 10: Special Election in Case of Vacancy WHEN: 10:00 a.

directly or indirectly practice any profession. 12: Illness of the President Public shall be informed of the state of his health Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces shall not be denied access to the President during such illness Sec. Undersecretaries. if majority of Cabinet denies such declaration. or in any franchise.HOW: written declaration of the President or majority of his Cabinet Vice-President shall assume office as Acting President RESUMPTION OF OFFICE: also through written declaration of the President. chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices. Congress shall decide the issue (if not in session. 13: Prohibition Cannot hold any other office or employment during tenure Cannot. including GOCCs and subsidiaries WHO CANNOT HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE DURING TENURE: President Vice-President Cabinet Members Deputies and Assistants EXCEPTIONS: . Congress will convene within 48 hrs) within 10 days (12 days if not in session). or special privilege granted by the Government Strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office President’s spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree be appointed as members of the Constitutional Commissions. or as Secretaries. during tenure. participate in any business or be financially interested in any contract with. by 2/3 vote Sec. or the Office of the Ombudsman.

16: Appointing Power TYPES OF APPOINTMENT: Regular Ad Interim Temporary . Sec. agency or subsidiary during term while Executive is prohibited from holding any other office. Q: What is ex officio capacity? A: When an official holds other duties for the same office where he does not receive additional compensation and the office is required by his primary function. whether public or private during tenure.When Vice-President is appointed as member of the Cabinet When Vice-President acts as President When Secretary of Justice is also a member of the Judiciary Q: Does the President have the same prohibition as Congress? A: No. because Congress is only prohibited from holding offices in GOCCs and any other government instrumentality. EXCEPT: temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety Sec. 14 and 15: Appointments extended by Acting President Effective unless revoked by the elected President within 90 days from his assumption or reassumption of office Acting President shall not make appointments 2 mos immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term.

Executive Secretary) Q: When is Congress considered to be in recess? A: Recess it not the time between the adjournment of Congress and the start of its regular session. No. April 2. and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution – requires confirmation from Commission on Appointments All other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone Nature of Ad Interim Appointment. first by Chairperson . ambassadors.Acting Appointments.R. WHO ARE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT: Heads of executive departments. Benipayo. Effect of Ad Interim Appointment as to Reappointment Matibag vs. How Ad Interim Appointment is Terminated. 149036. Q: How long will ad interim appointments last? A: Such appointments will last until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. other public ministers and consuls. The recess referred to here is the times of interval of the session of the same Congress. Rights of Ad Interim Appointee. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. 2002 FACTS: COMELEC en banc appointed petitioner as “Acting Director IV” of the EID. Such appointment was renewed in “temporary” capacity twice. effect and validity (See Pimental vs. G.

Art.” Thus. whether or not the renewal of their ad interim appointments and subsequent assumption of office to the same positions violate the prohibition on reappointment under Sec. PGMA appointed. Later.VII of the Constitution provides as follows: “The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress. IX-C Assuming that the first ad interim appointments and the first assumption of office by Benipayo. The fact that is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. xxx . IX-C RULING: Nature of an Ad Interim Appointment An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. Borra and Tuason on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued by the President amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by Sec. The three took their oaths of office and assumed their positions. Art. 1(2). ISSUES: Whether or not the assumption of office by Benipayo. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC Commissioners. whether voluntary or compulsory. but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. The second paragraph of Sec. each for a term of 7 yrs. 1(2). Art. Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman.16. since the Commission on Appointments did not act on said appointments. However. Borra and Tuason are legal. the ad interim appointment remains effective until such disapproval or next adjournment. PGMA renewed the ad interim appointments.Demetrio and then by Commissioner Javier. ad interim. signifying that it can no longer be withdrawn or revoked by the President.

Temporary Appointment . These resolutory conditions constitute. He enjoys the constitution protection that “[n]o officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. These two causes are resolutory conditions expressly imposed by the Constitution on all ad interim appointments. The withdrawal or revocation of an ad interim appointment is possible only if it is communicated to the appointee before the moment he qualifies. can complain because it is the Constitution itself that places the Sword of Damocles over the heads of the ad interim appointees.” Thus. The first cause is the disapproval of his ad interim appointment by the Commission on Appointments. Rights of an Ad Interim Appointee An ad interim appointee who has qualified and assumed office becomes at that moment a government employee and therefore part of the civil service.. and any withdrawal or revocation thereafter is tantamount to removal from office. Once an appointee has qualified. an ad interim appointment becomes complete and irrevocable once the appointee has qualified into office. however. has acquired a definite legal meaning under Philippine jurisprudence.. The second cause is the adjournment of Congress without the Commission on Appointments acting on his appointment. in effect. Ad Interim Appointment vs. he acquires a legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by the Constitution. The term.the term “ad interim appointment”… means a permanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress is in recess. consistent with the requirements of due process. He can only be removed for cause. No one. after notice and hearing. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or revoked at any time. although not found in the text of the Constitution.. How Ad Interim Appointment is Terminated An ad interim appointment can be terminated for two causes specified in the Constitution. a Sword of Damocles over the heads of ad interim appointees.

the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-passed appointee xxx The prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2). An ad interim appointment that is by-passed because of lack of time or failure of the Commission on Appointments to organize is another matter. the President can no longer renew the appointment not because of the constitutional prohibition on reappointment. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted upon on the merits by the Commission on Appointments at the close of the session of Congress. Article IX-C of the Constitution applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim appointments. and not because a reappointment is prohibited under Section 1 (2). Absent such decision. Since the Constitution does not provide for any appeal from such decision. including the COMELEC xxx Was the renewal of appointment valid? There is no dispute that an ad interim appointee disapproved by the Commission on Appointments can no longer be extended a new appointment. being a refusal by the Commission on Appointments to give its consent after deliberating on the qualifications of the appointee. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. The disapproval is a decision on the merits. A temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy any security of tenure. but because of a final decision by the Commission on Appointments to withhold its consent to the appointment. the disapproval is final and binding on the appointee as well as on the appointing power. Article IX-C of the Constitution. Article VII of the Constitution.While an ad interim appointment is permanent and irrevocable except as provided by law. no matter how briefly. an appointment or designation in a temporary or acting capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing power. A disapproved ad interim appointment cannot be revived by another ad interim appointment because the disapproval is final under Section 16. and such new appointment will not result in the appointee serving beyond the fixed term of seven years. The disapproval is a final decision of the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority of the President. . Article VII of the Constitution. In this instance. This is the kind of appointment that the Constitution prohibits the President from making to the three independent constitutional commissions. A by-passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a new ad interim appointment because there is no final disapproval under Section 16.

or board to appoint is declared unconstitutional. Under the same Section 16. there is a fourth group of lower-ranked officers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of departments. The first group refers to the heads of the Executive departments. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution with respect to the appointment of this fourth group of officers. agencies. the President shall appoint the trustees of the CCP Board because the trustees fall under the third group of officers. Scope of Appointment Power of the Heads of Departments. other public ministers and consuls. Agencies. Power of Control Rufino vs. or boards. July 21. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.R. the President appoints three groups of officers. The second group refers to those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. The present case involves the interpretation of Section 16. Commissions or Boards . if Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 is found unconstitutional. 2006 Appointment Power of President Under Section 16. or if the law authorizing the head of a department. G. commission. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The third group refers to all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law. The President appoints the first group of officers with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. 139554. commissions. The President appoints the second and third groups of officers without the consent of the Commission on Appointments. The President appoints the third group of officers if the law is silent on who is the appointing power. No. Endriga. ambassadors.Appointment Power of President. and other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution. Thus. agency.

the head is the Secretary. However. Section 16. agencies. like requiring the recommendation of subordinate officers or the concurrence of the other members of the commission or board. The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explain this intent beyond any doubt. or boards” the power to appoint lower-ranked officers. the head is the chairperson of the commission. or boards is a matter of legislative grace. In a board. . commissions. the head is also the chairperson of the board. In the last three situations. commissions. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes Congress to vest “in the heads of departments. The express language of the Constitution and the clear intent of its framers point to only one conclusion — the officers whom the heads of departments. commissions. or boards the power to appoint lowerranked officers. commissions. acting as such Undersecretary. or boards. commissions. the heads of agencies. or withhold from.The framers of the 1987 Constitution clearly intended that Congress could by law vest the appointment of lower-ranked officers in the heads of departments. or boards may appoint must be of lower rank than those vested by law with the power to appoint. the law may not also authorize officers other than the heads of the agency. commissions. In an agency. Congress may vest the authority to appoint only in the heads of the named offices Further. agencies. Congress may impose certain conditions for the exercise of such legislative delegation. agencies. The law may not authorize the Undersecretary. agencies. If it so grants. In a commission. commission. or board to appoint lower-ranked officers. or boards who are vested by law with the power to appoint. Congress has the discretion to grant to. the power is vested in the head of the agency for it would be preposterous to vest it in the agency itself. The framers of the 1987 Constitution changed the qualifying word “inferior” to the less disparaging phrase “lower in rank” purely for style. The grant of the power to appoint to the heads of agencies. to appoint lowerranked officers in the Executive department. the clear intent remained that these inferior or lower in rank officers are the subordinates of the heads of departments. xxx In a department in the Executive branch.

This is in contrast to the President’s power to appoint which is a self-executing power vested by the Constitution itself and thus not subject to legislative limitations or conditions. President’s Power of Control The presidential power of control over the Executive branch of government extends to all executive employees from the Department Secretary to the lowliest clerk. any agency “not placed by law or order creating them under any specific department” falls “under the Office of the President. Under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The CCP is also not one of the independent constitutional bodies. Thus. In mandating that the President “shall have control of all executive x x x offices.” Section 17. This constitutional power of the President is self-executing and does not require any implementing law. Congress cannot limit or curtail the President’s power of control over the Executive branch. The power to appoint conferred directly by the Constitution on the Supreme Court en banc and on the Constitutional Commissions is also self-executing and not subject to legislative limitations or conditions. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not exempt any executive office — one performing executive functions outside of the independent constitutional bodies — from the President’s power of control. There is no dispute that the CCP performs executive.” Since the President exercises control over “all the executive departments. bureaus. and in no other person. Neither is the CCP a quasi-judicial body nor a local government unit. or quasijudicial functions. The Constitution authorizes Congress to vest the power to appoint lower-ranked officers specifically in the “heads” of the specified offices. the CCP must fall under the Executive branch. The President’s power of control applies to the acts or decisions of all officers in the Executive branch. The word “heads” refers to the chairpersons of the commissions or boards and not to their members xxx. This is true whether such officers are appointed by the President . xxx The CCP does not fall under the Legislative or Judicial branches of government.” the President necessarily exercises control over the CCP which is an office in the Executive branch. and not legislative. and offices. judicial.

the Legislature can deprive the President of his constitutional power of control over “all the executive x x x offices. commissions.or by heads of departments.” If the Legislature can do this with the Executive branch. Legislative. the President’s power of control does not extend to quasi-judicial bodies whose proceedings and decisions are judicial in nature and subject to judicial review. If the office is part of the Executive branch. then the Legislature can also deal a similar blow to the Judicial branch by enacting a law putting decisions of certain lower courts beyond the review power of the Supreme Court. Otherwise. bureaus.” There can be no instance under the Constitution where an officer of the Executive branch is outside the control of the President. 17: Power of Control Power to Reorganize . Sec. This will destroy the system of checks and balances finely structured in the 1987 Constitution among the Executive. even as such quasi-judicial bodies may be under the administrative supervision of the President. The power of control means the power to revise or reverse the acts or decisions of a subordinate officer involving the exercise of discretion. It also does not extend to local government units. or boards. and exercises “control of all the executive departments. it must remain subject to the control of the President. the President sits at the apex of the Executive branch. The Executive branch is unitary since there is only one President vested with executive power exercising control over the entire Executive branch. and offices. Any office in the Executive branch that is not under the control of the President is a lost command whose existence is without any legal or constitutional basis. which are merely under the general supervision of the President. and Judicial branches. The Legislature cannot validly enact a law that puts a government office in the Executive branch outside the control of the President in the guise of insulating that office from politics or making it independent. Of course. In short. agencies.

R. while in abolition. while to “abolish” means to do away with. RULING: Deactivation vs. to annul. it seems that the resolution of this case hinges on the question – Does the “deactivation” of EIIB constitute “abolition” of an office? However. Estrada issued EO 191. Abolition At first glance. there exists a distinction between the words “deactivate” and “abolish. Thus. except where . by statute. In essence.” To “deactivate” means to render inactive or ineffective or to break up by discharging or reassigning personnel. Zamora. the same is not true in deactivation where the office continues to exist. GR: Congress has power to abolish The general rule has always been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. Be that as it may. A public office is either created by the Constitution. July 10. after coming to terms with the prevailing law and jurisprudence. the office ceases to exist. 2001 FACTS: Pres. deactivation and abolition are both reorganization measures. Thus. 142801-802. G. the EIIB personnel were deemed separated from service.Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB vs. we are certain that the ultimate queries should be – a) Does the President have the authority to reorganize the executive department? And b) How should the reorganization be carried out? Surely. No. or by authority of law. As a result. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to create includes the power to destroy. albeit remaining dormant or inoperative. deactivating the EIIB and transferring its functions to the BOC and NBI. abolition denotes an intention to do away with the office wholly and permanently. abrogate or destroy completely.

programs. 191. bureaus. activities and systems and procedures. . Organized Changes. however. the heads of departments. or certain laws may grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures. the President’s power of control may justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office. no changes in key positions or organizational units in any department or agency shall be authorized in their respective organizational structures and funded from appropriations provided by this Act.A. 7645 quoted in Larin. offices and agencies and other entities in the Executive Branch are directed (a) to conduct a comprehensive review of their respective mandates. 77. a provision similar to Section 62 of R. functions. Section 78 ends up with the mandate that the actual streamlining and productivity improvement in agency organization and operation shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the purpose by the Office of the President. agencies or offices in the executive department are concerned. is that as far as bureaus. The law has spoken clearly. Unless otherwise provided by law or directed by the President of the Philippines. thus.” We adhere to the precedent or ruling in Larin that this provision recognizes the authority of the President to effect organizational changes in the department or agency under the executive structure. and (c) adopt measures that will result in the streamlined organization and improved overall performance of their respective agencies. (b) identify activities which are no longer essential in the delivery of public services and which may be scaled down. Such a ruling further finds support in Section 78 of Republic Act No. missions. former President Estrada anchored his authority to deactivate EIIB on Section 77 of Republic Act 8745 (FY 1999 General Appropriations Act). objectives. What law gives President power to reorganize? In the whereas clause of E. “Sec. The exception. may be abolished by the same legislature that brought it into existence. 8760.O. No.the office was created by the Constitution itself. projects. We are left only with the duty to sustain. Under this law. phased-out or abolished.

subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity. and (e) where the removal violates the order of separation. we ruled that reorganization “involves the reduction of personnel. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987). Under Section 31. the list of legal basis authorizing the President to reorganize any department or agency in the executive branch does not have to end here. In this jurisdiction.But of course. In Canonizado v. The EIIB did not have this power. or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. being composed of elements from the Presidential Security Group (PSG) and Intelligence Service Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP). consolidation of offices. has the essential power to effect searches. including the lines of control. performance and merit.” It takes place when there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units therein. Reorganization is carried out in ‘good faith’ if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. Republic Act No. Pertinently. economy and efficiency. the functions of the EIIB have devolved upon the Task Force Aduana. Book III of Executive Order No. The EIIB is a bureau attached to the Department of Finance. 6656 provides for the circumstances which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil service employees made as a result of reorganization.” For this purpose. what is then left for us to resolve is whether or not the reorganization is valid. shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President. (c) where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment. to wit: (a) where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned. reorganizations have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. Aguirre. Was the reorganization valid? It having been duly established that the President has the authority to carry out reorganization in any branch or agency of the executive department. “the President. While basically. he may transfer the functions of other Departments or Agencies to the Office of the President. it is subject to the President’s continuing authority to reorganize. We must not lose sight of the very source of the power – that which constitutes an express grant of power. (b) where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is created. The . (d) where there is a classification of offices in the department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functions as the original offices. authority and responsibility between them. we find the latter to have additional new powers. Hence. seizures and arrests. It falls under the Office of the President. The Task Force Aduana.

378 SCRA 129 (2000) FACTS: The Sec. transferring the regional functions of that office to DOTCCAR Regional Office. Valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of the incumbents. Later. ISSUE: W/N the MO and DO are violative of the provision of the Constitution against encroachment on the powers of the legislative department . the Task Force Aduana has the additional authority to conduct investigation of cases involving ill-gotten wealth. office. the EIIB did not have this power. And. including government-owned or controlled corporations. of DOTC issued DO 97-1025. the new Sec.Task Force Aduana has the power to enlist the assistance of any department. establishing the DOTCCAR Regional Office as the Regional Office of the LTFRB to exercise regional functions of the LTFRB in the CAR subject to the direct supervision and control of the LTFRB Central Office. This was not expressly granted to the EIIB. facilities and resources. Again. of DOTC issued to LTFRB Chairman MO 96-735. bureau. we hold that petitioners’ right to security of tenure is not violated. and to use their personnel. or instrumentality of the government. we ruled that a reorganization in good faith is one designed to trim the fat off the bureaucracy and institute economy and greater efficiency in its operation. Consequently. Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. it cannot be said that there is a feigned reorganization. Mabalot protested. Mabalot. Civil Sevice Commission. Valid abolition of office is not separation Lastly. pending creation of a Regional LTFRO. of DOTC vs. In Blaquera v. Alter Ego Doctrine or Qualified Political Agency Sec.

1987 Constitution. Court upholds. through his duly constituted political agent and alter ego.O. stating that “unless Congress provides otherwise. and (3) by authority of law. the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws xxx” . Bk. Control By definition. This is anchored on the President’s “power of control” under sec. VII. particularly the establishment of the DOTCCAR as the LTFRB Regional Office of CAR with the concomitant transfer and performance of public functions and responsibilities appurtenant to a regional office of the LTFRB. Under sec. III.HELD: SC upheld the validity of the issuance of the challenged orders. The President. is authorized by law to create and establish the LTFRB-CAR Regional Office. as alter ego of the President.” It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law. There are three modes of establishing an administrative body: (1) Constitution. (2) Statute. In the absence of any patent or latent constitutional or statutory infirmity attending the issuance of the challenged orders. The DOTC Secretary. control is “the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify 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. 292. may legally and validly decree the reorganization of the Department. the Chief Executive is granted residual powers. 17. E. 20. This case falls under the third category. Art.

It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. It allows the President to contract and guarantee foreign loans. As a general rule. This Court may not ascribe to the . which includes the power to group. 20.What law then gives him the power to reorganize? It is PD 1772 which amended PD 1416. reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith. to transfer functions. 106064. 13. Sec. Power of President to Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans may be delegated to Secretary of Finance but must first secure Prior Consent. Granted that the President has the power to reorganize. services and activities and to standardize salaries and materials. VII of the Constitution provides xxx The language of the Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad. Art. . was the reorganization of DOTCCAR valid? In this jurisdiction.R. Cuisia. a reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. 2005 Power of President to contract or guarantee foreign loans (Sec. What Powers May Not Be Delegated Constantino vs. 20. VII) For their first constitutional argument. consolidate bureaus and agencies.” It thus bear the earmarks of good faith. Oct. to create and classify functions. petitioners submit that the buyback and bond-conversion schemes do not constitute the loan “contract” or “guarantee” contemplated in the Constitution and are consequently prohibited. Art. The reorganization in the instant case was decreed “in the interest of service” and “for purposes of economy and more effective coOrdination of the DOTC functions in the Cordillera Administrative Region. to abolish offices. These decrees expressly grant the President of the Philippines the continuing authority to reorganize the national government. No.G.

142. including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. privileges or jurisdiction which it grants. redemption. or refunding of any obligation. aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. entitled An Act Authorizing the Secretary of Finance to Borrow to Meet Public Expenditures Authorized by Law. or to make effective rights. we note that Republic Act (R. is that the loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. It would be the worst kind of judicial legislation if the courts were to misconstrue and change the meaning of the organic act. Decree (P.) No. of the Philippine Government. either direct or guaranteed. However. clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution should be construed in a sense that will allow the full exercise of the power provided therein. sovereign bonds may be issued not only to supplement government expenditures but also to provide for the purchase. 245 as amended by Pres.) No. xxx Under the foregoing provisions. xxx Buyback is a necessary power which springs from the grant of the foreign borrowing power. and for Other Purposes. The President is not empowered to borrow money from foreign banks and . On the Buyback Scheme In their Comment. 1973.Constitution meanings and restrictions that would unduly burden the powers of the President.D. The plain. In this regard. The only restriction that the Constitution provides. petitioners assert that the power to pay public debts lies with Congress and was deliberately withheld by the Constitution from the President.A. bonds. powers. to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. by implication. Every statute is understood. It is true that in the balance of power between the three branches of government. allows foreign loans to be contracted in the form of. the law-making authority has promulgated a law ordaining an automatic appropriations provision for debt servicing by virtue of which the President is empowered to execute debt payments without the need for further appropriations. it is Congress that manages the country’s coffers by virtue of its taxing and spending powers. inter alia. s.

the power to incur foreign debts is expressly reserved by the Constitution in the person of the President. primed as it is to raise the required amount of funding. The evident exigency of having the Secretary of Finance implement the decision of the President to execute the debt-relief contracts is made manifest by the fact that the process of establishing and executing a strategy for managing the government’s debt is deep within the realm of the expertise of the Department of Finance.governments on the credit of the Republic only to be left bereft of authority to implement the payment despite appropriations therefor. They submit that the requirement of prior concurrence of an entity specifically named by the Constitution–the Monetary Board–reinforces the submission that not respondents but the President “alone and personally” can validly bind the country. Petitioners’ position is negated both by explicit constitutional and legal imprimaturs. as well as the doctrine of qualified political agency. studying and choosing among the many methods that may be taken toward this end. and more often than not. Necessity thus gave birth to the doctrine of qualified political agency xxx . achieve its risk and cost objectives. and meet any other sovereign debt management goals. he/she would have to pause from running the country long enough to focus on a welter of time-consuming detailed activities– the propriety of incurring/guaranteeing loans. If. explaining and defending the negotiated deal to the public. meeting countless times with creditor representatives to negotiate. the President were to personally exercise every aspect of the foreign borrowing power. This sort of constitutional interpretation would negate the very existence of cabinet positions and the respective expertise which the holders thereof are accorded and would unduly hamper the President’s effectivity in running the government. On Delegation of Power Petitioners stress that unlike other powers which may be validly delegated by the President. They argue that the gravity by which the exercise of the power will affect the Filipino nation requires that the President alone must exercise this power. flying to the agreed place of execution to sign the documents. obtaining the concurrence of the Monetary Board. as petitioners would have it.

Had petitioners herein succeeded in demonstrating that the President actually withheld approval and/or repudiated the Financing Program. but from the established functions of governance. The declaration of martial law. there could be a cause of action to nullify the acts of respondents. Congruent with the avowed preference of then President Aquino to honor and restructure existing foreign debts. but there must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import. The Secretary of Finance or any designated alter ego of the President is bound to secure the latter’s prior consent to or subsequent ratification of his acts. Secretary of Finance must get prior consent of President Another important qualification must be made. all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the constitutionally vested power. would involve the suspension of fundamental freedoms. and if exercised. petitioners do not assert that respondents pursued the Program without prior authorization of the President or that the terms of the contract were agreed upon without the President’s authorization. Indubitably. We cannot conclude that the power of the President to contract or guarantee foreign debts falls within the same exceptional class. the lack of showing that she countermanded the acts of respondents leads us to conclude that said acts carried presidential approval. the repudiation by the President of the very acts performed in this regard by the alter ego will definitely have binding effect. 18: Commander-in-Chief Powers of the President: .What powers may not be delegated xxx There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional circumstances. Sec. and the exercise of the pardoning power notwithstanding the judicial determination of guilt of the accused. the decision to contract or guarantee foreign debts is of vital public interest. the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Notably though. but only akin to any contractual obligation undertaken by the sovereign. The list is by no means exclusive. or at least call for the supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of government. In the matter of contracting or guaranteeing foreign loans. which arises not from any extraordinary incident.

Feb.R. 2004) What happens when Martial Law is declared: No suspension of operation of the Constitution No supplanting of the functioning of the civil courts and legislative assemblies . 3. 159085. rebellion or invasion. rebellion or invasion Whenever it becomes necessary MARTIAL LAW Conditions for declaration of Martial Law: When there is (1) rebellion or (2) invasion (grounds) Public safety requires the declaration NOTA BENE: There must be actual rebellion or invasion. No.Power to call on the military or armed forces Power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus Power to declare martial law CALLING OUT POWER Conditions for calling out the armed forces: To suppress lawless violence. Reyes. Differ this from the calling out power which does not require actual rebellion or invasion but only that whenever it (the exercise of the calling out power) becomes necessary to suppress lawless violence. (See Sanlakas vs. G.

judgment to be rendered within 30 days from its filing by any ordinary citizen SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (NOTE: the conditions and effect of the suspension of the writ is similar to declaration of martial law) Restrictions to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus: Apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion Apply only to persons judicially charged for offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion The person arrested must be judicially charged within 3 days from arrest. otherwise he shall be released .No conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function No automatic suspension of the writ of habeas corpus Constitutional guards against the power to declare Martial Law: Will last only for 60 days. President is required to submit a report to Congress Congress shall revoke or extend the period by jointly voting with an absolute majority and President may not reverse such revocation If Congress is not in session. they shall convene within 24 hours from such declaration without need for call Supreme Court may nullify the declaration on the ground of lack of factual basis. unless sooner revoked by Congress Within 48 hours after declaration.

Reprieve – discretionary upon the President to suspend the enforcement of judgment . or as otherwise provided in this Constitution. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. To be valid. Pardon – a private act of the President granted after judgment by final conviction for ordinary offenses.Sec. commutations. the criminal liability of the offender and all the effects of the crime are completely erased. and remit fines and forfeitures. it is a public act) and the accused must admit his guilt.” EXECUTIVE CLEMENCIES: Amnesty Pardon Reprieve Commutation Remit fines and forfeitures Amnesty – an act of grace by the Chief Executive as a result of the grant of amnesty. acceptance of condition – if burdensome to the accused – is necessary. It may be absolute or condition. in which case. The effect is to relieve the accused from further punishment. Congress has to concur with a majority vote (thus. effect is reinstatement but no payment of backwages. the President may grant reprieves. It is a blanket pardon given to a class of persons who committed crimes that are political in nature. if given after sentence has been served. its effect is to extinguish the accessory penalties. after conviction by final judgment. and pardons. 19: Executive Clemencies “Except in cases of impeachment. thus. In case of administrative cases.

VII vs. No. Zamora.Sec. Article VII should apply inasmuch as the VFA is not a basing arrangement but an agreement which involves merely the temporary visits of United States personnel engaged in joint military exercises. 20: Power to Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans Scope of Power (See Constantino vs. Respondents. Section 21. XVIII One focal point of inquiry in this controversy is the determination of which provision of the Constitution applies. 21. Article VII. Aquino) Power to Ratify by President vs. 10. Petitioners argue that Section 25. 2000 Sec. Art. Article XVIII is applicable considering that the VFA has for its subject the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines. reads: . 138570.” Power to enter into and ratify treaties is sole prerogative of the Executive (See AKBAYAN vs. G. 21: Treaty-making Power “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. which herein respondents invoke. Senate’s Power to Concur Bayan vs. Cuisia) Sec. maintain that Section 21. Oct. with regard to the exercise by the senate of its constitutional power to concur with the VFA. Sec. 25. The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Art.R. on the contrary.

such as. Section 25. Section 25. troops or facilities in the Philippines. Section 21 opens with the clause “No treaty x x x. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose. provides: “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases. are deemed prohibitory in mandate and character. coverage. troops. In particular. in which case. It is our considered view that both constitutional provisions.” Section 25. Article XVIII further requires that “foreign military bases. the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate is required to make the subject treaty. In contrast. or international agreement. foreign military bases.” Additionally. but not limited to. or particular designation or appellation.” Section 21. This provision lays down the general rule on treatise or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter. in both . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. troops. the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines. or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the senate and. actually share some common ground. when the Congress so requires. far from contradicting each other. These constitutional provisions both embody phrases in the negative and thus. Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases. valid and binding on the part of the Philippines.“No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” and Section 25 contains the phrase “shall not be allowed. regardless of subject matter. Article VII deals with treatise or international agreements in general. Under this provision. extradition or tax treatise or those economic in nature. and recognized as such by the other contracting state. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines. or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate. ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by Congress. Article XVIII. requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.

importation and exportation of equipment. Section 25. On the whole. ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum. however. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. and further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction. Art. To a certain extent and in a limited sense. we shall then resolve the issue of whether or not the requirements of Section 25 were complied with when the Senate gave its concurrence to the VFA. the provisions of section 21. movement of vessel and aircraft. There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. Article XVIII. Article VII. 21. the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. troops. Article XVIII. and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. should apply in the instant case. and that the Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision. Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate. VII should be read together with Sec. The concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases. viz: (a) it must be under a treaty. XVIII At this juncture. unless the following conditions are sufficiently met. whether under the general . It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel. the concurrence of the Senate is indispensable to render the treaty or international agreement valid and effective. or facilities in the country. Sec. when so required by congress. troops. Section 25. as will be further discussed hereunder. whether under Section 21. Undoubtedly. (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and. 25. Art.instances. the fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Section 21. materials and supplies. or facilities. Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases. For in either case. Article VII or Section 25. is immaterial. the fundamental law is crystalline that the concurrence of the Senate is mandatory to comply with the strict constitutional requirements. To our mind.

requirement in Section 21. the “concurrence requirement” under Section 25. the provision in the latter article requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not required it. Without a tinge of doubt. Article VII. to be valid and effective. Indeed. a two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate is clearly required so that the concurrence contemplated by law may be validly obtained and deemed present. As to the matter of voting. Section 21. VII. be made by a two -thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. that the treaty-the VFA. Article VII. favorably acting on the proposal is an unquestionable compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned in Section 21 of Article VII. The fact that there were actually twenty-three (23) incumbent Senators at the time the voting was made. among other things. Section 25. Article XVIII means that at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate favorably vote to concur with the treaty-the VFA in the instant case. In a more particular language. must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. While it is true that Section 25. On the other hand. Article XVIII requires. even if the two-thirds vote requirement is based on this figure of actual members (23). two-thirds (2/3) of this figure.” it is very true however that said provision must be related and viewed in light of the clear mandate embodied in Section 21. Article VII. the concurrence of the Senate contemplated under Section 25. Article XVIII simply provides that the treaty be “duly concurred in by the Senate. requires that the concurrence of a treaty. or international agreement. the charter provides that the Senate shall be composed of twenty-four (24) Senators. Article XVIII must be construed in relation to the provisions of Section 21. . Article. Article XVIII must not be treated in isolation to section 21. will not alter in any significant way the circumstance that more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the proposed VFA. Section 25. or the specific mandate mentioned in Section 25. In this regard. which in more specific terms. in the instant case-be “duly concurred in by the Senate. Article XVIII. Article VII particularly requires that a treaty or international agreement. or at least 16 favorable votes.” Applying the foregoing constitutional provisions. the fundamental law is clear that twothirds of the 24 Senators. Under these circumstances. As noted. suffice so as to render compliance with the strict constitutional mandate of giving concurrence to the subject treaty. or not less than sixteen (16) members.

the United States of America in this case. The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when: (a) the treaty provides for such ratification. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent. to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution. or concurrence. is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. by the President. under international law. undertaken by the head of the state or of the government. (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States agreed that ratification should be required. . as the case may be. or was expressed during the negotiation. of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear an unequivocal expression of our nation’s consent to be bound by said treaty.What constitutes a treaty This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. is that the ratification. it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because. to the ratification. xxx Moreover. Ratification is generally held to be an executive act. or (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative. To require the other contracting state. the power to ratify is vested in the President and not. in the legislature. In our jurisdiction. as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law. A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty. To be sure. (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification. the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty. as commonly believed. an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. Ratification by President vis-à-vis Concurrence of Senate Worth stressing too. through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed.

In this light. be viewed to constitute an abuse of power. Thus. the President is the chief architect of the nation’s foreign policy. much less grave . no less than Section 2.” Wielding vast powers an influence. cooperation and amity with all nations. in like manner. and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. In many ways. his “dominance in the field of foreign relations is (then) conceded. under the principles of international law. may not be validly struck down. or exercises its prerogative within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. the Constitution vests the same in the President. subject only to the concurrence of at least two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate. which is equivalent to final acceptance. the concurrence cannot. is “executive altogether. it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part. the President. Thus. once the Senate performs that power. is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. Who has power to ratify treaties? By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office.squarely fall within the sphere of his constitutional powers and thus. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude. as head of State." As regards the power to enter into treaties or international agreements. Consequently. Article II of the Constitution. to be bound by the terms of the agreement. in the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power or discretion. in the lawful exercise of his vast executive and diplomatic powers granted him no less than by the fundamental law itself. and with the exchange of notes between the Philippines and the United States of America. the negotiation of the VFA and the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts which pertain solely to the President. his conduct in the external affairs of the nation. Senate’s Power to Concur As to the power to concur with treaties.With the ratification of the VFA. much less calibrated by this Court. freedom. declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace. equality. as Jefferson describes. the constitution lodges the same with the Senate alone. justice. the acts or judgment calls of the President involving the VFA-specifically the acts of ratification and entering into a treaty and those necessary or incidental to the exercise of such principal acts .

2003 FACTS: The government through the PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI. the Senate. May 6. The JVA provides. through this treaty-concurring power of the Senate. the Senate.84 hectares of lands comprising the Freedom Islands and 592. as an independent body possessed of its own erudite mind. has the prerogative to either accept or reject the proposed agreement. In this sense. ISSUE: Whether or not the JVA is valid . the transfer of ownership of 77. may not be similarly faulted for having simply performed a task conferred and sanctioned by no less than the fundamental law. yet delicate. in order to reclaim 157. the Senate partakes a principal.abuse thereof.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay. a healthy system of checks and balances indispensable toward our nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth. pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. a private corporation.R. PEA & AMARI. among others. 133250. When invalid sales may no longer be invalidated Chavez vs. Corollarily. and whatever action it takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion. in the exercise of its discretion and acting within the limits of such power. True enough. G.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands to AMARI. role in keeping the principles of separation of powers and of checks and balances alive and vigilantly ensures that these cherished rudiments remain true to their form in a democratic government such as ours. The Constitution thus animates. rudimentary is the principle that matters pertaining to the wisdom of a legislative act are beyond the ambit and province of the courts to inquire. No. Power of President to Reclassify Public Lands and Sell the Same Reclaimed Lands vs. For the role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentially legislative in character. Submerged Lands.

the Decision merely reiterates. subject to the ownership limitations in the 1987 Constitution and existing laws. the Decision does not overrule existing law or doctrine. 1654 on May 18. Only then can these lands qualify as agricultural lands of the public domain. Submerged Areas are Inalienable The 592. which are the only natural resources the government can alienate. PEA may lease these lands to private corporations but may not sell or transfer ownership of these lands to private corporations. JVA is invalid The prevailing doctrine before. This is one of the two main reasons why the Decision annulled the Amended JVA. . The government can make such classification and declaration only after PEA has reclaimed these submerged areas. The other main reason is that submerged areas of Manila Bay. alienable lands of the public domain. during and after the signing of the Amended JVA is that private corporations cannot hold. being part of the sea. the 592. And since the enactment of Act No. are inalienable and beyond the commerce of man. now covered by certificates of title in the name of PEA. a doctrine that has remained immutable since the Spanish Law on Waters of 1886. and does not overrule. In their present state. PEA may only sell these lands to Philippine citizens. are alienable lands of the public domain.RULING: Reclaimed Lands are Alienable Lands of the Public Domain The 157. Since the adoption of the Regalian doctrine in this jurisdiction.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands. Even on the characterization of foreshore lands reclaimed by the government. except by lease.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain until classified as alienable or disposable lands open to disposition and declared no longer needed for public service. the sea and its foreshore areas have always been part of the public domain. Clearly. any existing judicial doctrine.15 hectares of submerged areas are inalienable and outside the commerce of man.

In the instant case. But none of these cases apply to Amari. where the alien who buys the land subsequently acquires Philippine citizenship. Congressional enactment needed to convey lands of the public domain .. the courts and the parties are bound by a prior final decision. there is no prior final decision adjudicating the Freedom Islands to Amari.” The invalidation of the sale or transfer may also be superfluous if the purpose of the statutory or constitutional ban has been achieved. The 1973 and 1987 Constitution enshrined and expanded the ban to include any alienable land of the public domain. however. As the Court declared. Properties of the Public Domain are outside the commerce of man.1907 until the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. the invalidity of the first transfer is corrected by the subsequent sale to a citizen. hold that the sale or transfer of the land may no longer be invalidated because of “weighty considerations of equity and social justice. The Court has also ruled consistently that a sale or transfer of the land may no longer be questioned under the principle of res judicata. the sale is validated since the purpose of the constitutional ban to limit land ownership to Filipinos has been achieved. Similarly. Abandonment does not amount to conversion. decisions of the Court which. it can no longer be disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be. statutory law never allowed foreshore lands reclaimed by the government to be sold to private corporations. the Court has ruled consistently that where a Filipino citizen sells land to an alien who later sells the land to a Filipino. Amari admits that title to the Freedom Islands still remains with PEA. Under this principle. Amari has not transferred the Freedom Islands. the law disregards the constitutional disqualification of the buyer to hold land if the land is subsequently transferred to a qualified party. In short.. otherwise there will be no end to litigation. to any qualified party. Thus. Exceptions to Invalid Sales: When they may be upheld There are. of course. while recognizing a violation of the law or Constitution.“once a judgement has become final and executory. or the buyer himself becomes a qualified party.” In the instant case. In fact. provided the requisites for res judicata are present. or any portion of it.

It cannot be alienated. the Aquino administration advanced the sale of the reparation properties. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment. the Roppongi property has remained undeveloped since that time. July 25. which included the Roppongi lot. as part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and property and their suffering during WWII. The Roppongi property became the site of the Philippine Embassy until the latter was transferred to another site when the Roppongi building needed major repairs. Due to the failure of our government to provide necessary funds. After many years. and resides in the social group. There can be no doubt that it is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property has become patrimonial. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person. it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation. that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi property itself was specifically designated under the Reparations Agreement to house the Philippine Embassy. hence outside the Commerce of Man The nature of the Roppongi lot as property for public service is expressly spelled out. It is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement and the corresponding contract of procurement which bind both the Philippine government and the Japanese government. Nos. an application to the satisfaction of collective needs. G. the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. Garcia. As property of public dominion.Laurel vs. . RULING: Roppongi Property belongs to the Public Domain. 92013 & 92047. which respondents have failed to show.R. 1990 FACTS: The Roppongi Property is one of the four properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement. but the citizens.

Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. was there abandonment amounting to conversion of said property as patrimonial? The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property.But since Roppongi Property has not been used for any public purpose. but merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale. Conveyance effected by Congressional Enactment Section 79 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Conveyances and contracts to which the Government is a party) provides that “in cases in which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a party to any deed or other instrument conveying the title to real estate or to any other property the value of which is in excess of P100. Such deed. 335 [1960]) An abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite. Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises. together with the proper recommendations. instrument. the recent Administrative Orders authorizing a study of the status and conditions of government properties in Japan were merely directives for investigation but did not in any way signify a clear intention to dispose of the properties. Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Official authorized to convey real property). Further EO 296 does not declare that the properties lost their public character. 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). 108 Phil. Bercilles. shall be submitted to the Congress of the Philippines for approval by the same. the deed of conveyance shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following: (1) for property belonging to and titled in the name of .000. not available for private appropriation or ownership "until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. or contract shall be executed and signed by the President of the Philippines on behalf of the Government of the Philippines unless the Government of the Philippines unless the authority therefor be expressly vested by law in another officer. which provides that “Whenever real property of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed. 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Director of Lands. Lazarao. Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292. In the present case." The requirement has been retained in Section 48. A property continues to be part of the public domain. the respective Department Secretary shall prepare the necessary papers which. v. lease or other disposition.

it is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole will. (2) for property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality. Subsequently. Aquino and P. being a private corporation. (RBI) was declared the winning bidder. 2007 FACTS: This is a Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus seeking to declare null and void the JVA entered into by NHA and the R-II Builders. Who is authorized to reclaim foreshore and submerged land. It requires executive and legislative concurrence. G. Power to order reclamation of land is reposed in the President Chavez vs. Aquino. 164527. Inc. 39 of Pres. A public bidding was held and R-II Builders. NHA and RII builders entered into a JVA implementing the Project. NHA. MO 415 of Pres. ISSUES: Whether or not NHA and RBI may validly reclaim foreshore and submerged land Whether or not RBI can acquire the reclaimed foreshore and submerged land areas Whether or not RBI.O." Thus. 15.R. by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality. coupled with Special Patents issued by the DENR in favour of NHA. Aug. inclusive of foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay. into a low cost medium rise housing complex and industrial/commercial site. No.the Republic of the Philippines. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted by the Congress. by the President. Inc. classified the reclaimed lands as alienable and disposable. unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by law in another officer. Pursuant to a Memorandum Order on waste management issued by then Pres. NHA undertook the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project (SMDRP) for the purpose of converting the Smokey Mountain dumpsite. is disqualified from being a transferee of public land . Ramos.

logically. and 3. Approval by the President. the requisites for a legal and valid reclamation project are: 1. Undertaken by any of the following: (a) By PEA (b) By any person or entity pursuant to a contract it executed with PEA (c) By the National Government agency or entity authorized under its charter to reclaim lands subject to consultation with PEA Thus. While the authority of NHA to reclaim lands is challenged by petitioner. and successfully implement an urban land reform and housing program enunciated in Sec. we rule that the NHA has an implied power to reclaim land as this is vital or incidental to effectively. While PD 757. But under EO 525. we find that the NHA had more than enough authority to do so under existing laws.RULING: Who has authority to reclaim foreshore and submerged land? Petitioner contends that the power and authority to reclaim lands of the public domain is exclusively vested in the PEA. PEA being only an agency and a part of the National Government. Favourable recommendation of PEA. such authority is NOT exclusive and such power to reclaim may be granted or delegated to another government agency or entity or may even be undertaken by the National Government itself. 9 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution. . 2. directing and coordinating reclamation projects. the charter of NHA. neither NHA nor R-II builders may validly reclaim foreshore and submerged land. while PEA under PD 1084 has the power to reclaim land and under EO 525 is primarily responsible for integrating. Thus. does not explicitly mention "reclamation" in any of the listed powers of the agency.

we nevertheless find petitioner's position bereft of merit. Sec. On the other hand.. modify. RA 6957. VII of the Constitution provides that "the President shall have control of all executive departments. 17. Notwithstanding the need for DENR permission. Express powers are those powers granted.Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a government agency or office has express and implied powers based on its charter and other pertinent statutes.. and PD 3-A. NHA."[71] . The requirement applies to PEA. means "the power of an officer to alter. or any other government agency or office granted with such power under the law. every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication. "Control. Electoral Commission. the Court clarified and stressed that when a general grant of power is conferred or duty enjoined. bureaus and offices. implied powers are those that can be inferred or are implicit in the wordings of the law or conferred by necessary or fair implication in the enabling act In Angara v. allocated. It was also explicated that when the statute does not specify the particular method to be followed or used by a government agency in the exercise of the power vested in it by law." in administrative law. said agency has the authority to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions. Art. Is the DENR’s authorization needed before a reclamation project in Manila Bay or in any part of the Philippines can be undertaken? . RA 7279. nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter." The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are faithfully executed. and delegated to a government agency or office by express provisions of law.[t]he NHA is still required to procure DENR's authorization before a reclamation project in Manila Bay or in any part of the Philippines can be undertaken. The power to reclaim on the part of the NHA is implicit from PD 757. MO 415. The DENR is deemed to have granted the authority to reclaim in the Smokey Mountain Project for the following reasons: 1.

The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 grants authority to the President to reserve lands of public domain for settlement for any specific purpose.) Can RBI acquire reclaimed foreshore and submerged lands considered as inalienable and outside the commerce of man? . Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. which is patently illegal and unconstitutional. making DENR a member of the committee tasked to implement the project. The DENR is a department in the executive branch under the President. the President can exercise executive power motu proprio and can supplant the act or decision of a subordinate with the President's own. any department head can defy or oppose the implementation of a project approved by the head of the executive branch. any of the lands of the public domain. and for specific public purposes. Ordinarily the proposed action and the staff work are initially done by a department like the DENR and then submitted to the President for approval. Otherwise. as in this case. the required authorization from the DENR to reclaim land can be deemed satisfied. and it is only an alter ego of the latter. the power to order the reclamation of lands of public domain is reposed first in the Philippine President. xxx Moreover. thus: Section 14. (Emphasis supplied. It cannot be disputed that the ultimate power over alienable and disposable public lands is reposed in the President of the Philippines and not the DENR Secretary. when the President approved and ordered the development of a housing project with the corresponding reclamation work. Such is a presidential prerogative as long as it involves the department or office authorized by law to supervise or execute the Project.--(1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use.As such. Thus. there is nothing infirm or unconstitutional if the President decides on the implementation of a certain project or activity and requires said department to implement it. However. To still require a DENR authorization on the Smokey Mountain when the President has already authorized and ordered the implementation of the Project would be a derogation of the powers of the President as the head of the executive branch. the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation.

39 and 465 are explicit declarations that the lands to be reclaimed are classified as alienable and . Proclamations Nos. Otherwise. Otherwise.The reclaimed lands across R-10 were classified alienable and disposable lands of public domain of the State for the following reasons. (3) Proclamation No. Special Patents Nos. Admittedly." The directive to transfer the lands once reclaimed to the NHA implicitly carries with it the declaration that said lands are alienable and disposable. Said directive carries with it the pronouncement that said lands have been transformed to alienable and disposable lands. The authority put into the hands of the NHA to dispose of the reclaimed lands tacitly sustains the conversion to alienable and disposable lands. of which Sec. to wit: (1) MO 415 issued by President Aquino. 39 and 465 issued by President Ramos. 3591. viz: First. classified the reclaimed areas as alienable and disposable. (2) Proclamation No. 39 issued by then President Ramos by which the reclaimed lands were conveyed to NHA for subdivision and disposition to qualified beneficiaries and for development into a mixed land use (commercial/industrial) to provide employment opportunities to on-site families and additional areas for portrelated activities. 4 states that "[t]he land covered by the Smokey Mountain Dumpsite is hereby conveyed to the National Housing Authority as well as the area to be reclaimed across R-10. the NHA cannot effectively use them in its housing and resettlement project. there were three (3) presidential proclamations classifying the reclaimed lands across R-10 as alienable or disposable hence open to disposition or concession. 465 likewise issued by President Ramos enlarged the reclaimed area to 79 hectares to be developed and disposed of in the implementation of the SMDRP. and 3598 issued by the DENR anchored on Proclamations Nos. it cannot be said that MO 415. there is no legal way to convey it to the beneficiaries. without doubt. Secondly. 3592.

they are automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private corporations. and in the hands of NHA. The reason is obvious: if the reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial land once transferred to NHA. it cannot attain its avowed purposes and goals since it can only transfer patrimonial lands to qualified beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise funds for the SMDRP.disposable. pursuant to PEA. 60% of which are owned by Filipinos. This is because PEA under PD 1084 and EO 525 is tasked to hold and dispose of alienable lands of public domain and it is only when it is transferred to Filipino citizens that it becomes patrimonial property. It may be argued that the grant of authority to sell public lands. the devotion of the reclaimed land to public use or service . we find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been declared alienable and disposable land of the public domain. More importantly. Can RBI acquire reclaimed lands when there was no declaration that said lands are no longer needed for public use? MO 415 and Proclamations Nos. 39 and 465 are declarations that proclaimed the non-use of the reclaimed areas for public use or service as the Project cannot be successfully implemented without the withdrawal of said lands from public use or service. The moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the special patents are transferred to the NHA by the Register of Deeds. then it would be useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot legally transfer or alienate lands of public domain. On the other hand. it has been reclassified as patrimonial property. From the foregoing considerations. or to government entities not tasked to dispose of public lands. We ruled in PEA that "alienable lands of public domain must be transferred to qualified private parties. It is only on such date that the reclaimed lands became alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. The query is. We find however that such conclusion is derived and implicit from the authority given to the NHA to transfer the reclaimed lands to qualified beneficiaries. Certainly." To lands reclaimed by PEA or through a contract with a private person or entity. the NHA is a government agency not tasked to dispose of public lands under its charter--The Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA is an "end-user agency" authorized by law to administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. does not convert alienable lands of public domain into private or patrimonial lands. before these lands can become private or patrimonial lands (emphasis supplied). when did the declaration take effect? It did so only after the special patents covering the reclaimed areas were issued. such reclaimed lands still remain alienable lands of public domain which can be transferred only to Filipino citizens but not to a private corporation.

thus: Section 60. or otherwise disposed of in a manner affecting its title. the presidential proclamations on SMDRP together with the issuance of the special patents had effectively removed the reclaimed lands from public use. municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government. corporation or association authorized to purchase or lease public lands for agricultural purposes. This position is misplaced.) Reliance on said provision is incorrect as the same applies only to "a province. further. Without doubt. may lease land included under this title suitable for industrial or residential purposes. municipality or branch or subdivision of the Government for the purposes deemed by said entities conducive to the public interest. in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Emphasis supplied. transfers. except when authorized by Congress. made to a province. but the land so granted donated or transferred to a province. Any tract of land comprised under this title may be leased or sold. Petitioner relies on Sec. He argues that unlike PEA. Provided. however. 60 of Commonwealth Act (CA) 141 to support his view that the NHA is not empowered by any law to sell reclaimed land. to any person. municipality. association or partnership disqualified from purchasing public land for agricultural purposes under the provisions of this Act. Is there a law authorizing the sale of reclaimed lands? Petitioner next claims that RBI cannot acquire the reclaimed lands because there was no law authorizing their sale. donations." The NHA is not a . The area of the land so leased or sold shall be such as shall. encumbered. as the case may be. corporation. That any person. but the lease granted shall only be valid while such land is used for the purposes referred to. That this limitation shall not apply to grants.conflicts with the intended use of the Smokey Mountain areas for housing and employment of the Smokey Mountain scavengers and for financing the Project because the latter cannot be accomplished without abandoning the public use of the subject land. be reasonably necessary for the purposes for which such sale or lease if requested and shall in no case exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares: Provided. or branch or subdivision of the Government shall not be alienated. no legislative authority was granted to the NHA to sell reclaimed land.

. 39 and 465 were issued. The NHA is an end-user entity such that when alienable lands of public domain are transferred to said agency. 3. they are automatically classified as patrimonial properties. . When Proclamations Nos. then it has the power to sell the same to any qualified person--under the Constitution. When the titles to the reclaimed lands were transferred to the NHA. Thus. Is RBI.. In addition.government unit but a government corporation performing governmental and proprietary functions.. RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 explicitly states that a contractor can be paid "a portion as percentage of the reclaimed land" subject to the constitutional requirement that only Filipino citizens or corporations with at least 60% Filipino equity can acquire the same. The NHA is similarly situated as BCDA which was granted the authority to dispose of patrimonial lands of the government under RA 7227. PD 757 is clear that the NHA is empowered by law to transfer properties acquired by it under the law to other parties. It cannot be denied that RBI is a private corporation. 2. inalienable lands covered by said proclamations were converted to alienable and disposable lands of public domain. where Filipino citizens own at least 60% of the stocks. The only way it can transfer the reclaimed land in conjunction with its projects and to attain its goals is when it is automatically converted to patrimonial properties of the State. the transfer to RBI is valid and constitutional. said alienable and disposable lands of public domain were automatically classified as lands of the private domain or patrimonial properties of the State because the NHA is an agency NOT tasked to dispose of alienable or disposable lands of public domain. being a private corporation. 60% of which is owned by Filipino citizens like RBI. barred by the Constitution to acquire lands of public domain? Petitioner's proposition has no legal mooring for the following reasons: 1. Being patrimonial or private properties of the State. Filipino citizens as private corporations.

as the basis of the general appropriations bill. including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. 23: SONA Sec. Sec. . 23: The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. a budget of expenditures and sources of financing. 22: Preparation and Submission of Budget Sec. He may also appear before it at any other time. 22: The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty-days from the opening of every regular session.Sec.