You are on page 1of 14

ART VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SEC 1: Executive power shall be vested in President

Marcos vs Manglapus – Residual powers belong to President. President has obligation to protect
people, promote their welfare, and advance the national interest. Whatever power inherent to the
government that is neither legislative or judicial has to be executive.

Webb vs De Leon – RA 6981 provides that state witness are not to be included in the information or
complaint. Prosecution of crime pertains to the executive department. Right to prosecute is necessary
to the power to execute laws. Court can only choose state witness not because it is inherent with it, but
because it has acquired jurisdiction.

Djumantan vs Domingo – Deportation power also belongs to President. This right is deemed inimical
to public interest. Alien’s stay in PH is of pure permission and not obligation.

Pontejos vs Ombudsman – President has Power to grant immunity to state witness. The decision on
whether to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character. The fact that individual was not
previously charged or included in information does not prevent prosecution from utilizing said person as
witness.

Banda vs Ermita – The President has power to reorganize. This is granted by his power of control.
Existing statute also delegates power to reorganize.

Laurel vs Garcia – President cannot sell property in ruponggi. There must be a law enacted first.

Review Center vs Ermita – There is no law granted to President to amend functions of CHED. President
has no inherent legislative power. The power of the PRC is to regulate members, not the review
centers. In the case at bar, higher learning means college education, review centers do not grant a
degree.
Biraogo vs Truth Commission – The power to create an ad hoc committee is recognized as an inherent
power of the President. This is for the need to ascertain facts and determine if laws have been faithfully
executed. President has obligation to ensure all executive officials and employees faithfully comply
with the law. However, in this case Truth commission was unconstitutional for violating equal
protection clause.

US vs Nixon – The doctrine of separation of powers or the need for confidentiality cannot sustain an
absolute and unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all
circumstances. The need for confidentiality must also be balanced with public interest. In this case, the
need for production of evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication
of a criminal case in the administration of justice. This general claim of confidentiality cannot prevail
over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.

Almonte vs Vasquez – EEIB information is not subject to the privilege. Information must pertain to
confidential information such as military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security.

Senate vs Ermita – The privilege applies to the nature of information not to persons.

Neri vs Senate – The 3 elements needed to be complied to claim executive privilege are communication
must relate to quintessential and non- delegable presidential power, advisor must be in operational
proximity with the president, and there is no compelling need to justify limitation of privilege and of
the unavailability of information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

Akbayan vs Aquino – Offers submitted for JEPEPA are international trade agreements that are of public
concern. The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by sufficient
showing of need. It is to be determined in case by case basis. Agency must show that document is both
predecisional and deliberative.

Solivien vs Makasiar – Only the President may invoke the privilege of immunity from suit. President
may also waive this right.
Clinton vs Jones – Rationale for granting immunity is to enable President to perform function
effectively without fear. This rationale cannot apply if the act was done before being elected as
President.

Gloria vs CA – In this case the complaint is directed to petitioners not the President. Even the act of
President may be questioned before the court. Since the act infringe on security of tenure there is
Grave abuse of Discretion.

Estrada vs Desierto – Incumbent President are immune from suit during their tenure, but not beyond.
Unlawful acts are not acts of the State. Failure to impeach does not bar criminal proceeding.

David vs Arroyo – The President cannot be sued as a respondent. Settled is the doctrine that the
President, during his tenure may not be sued in any civil or criminal case related to her office. She
must be free from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to
the performance of his duties and functions.

Section 2: No person may be elected President unless he is a natural born citizen, registered voter, able
to read and write, 40 years of age at the day of election, and resident for at least 10 years immediately
preceding the election.

Poe vs COMELEC – Grace Poe is a natural born citizen. There is high probability that her parents are
Filipinos because of physical attributes. She was also left in a municipality where it was overwhelmingly
Filipino. Also she is a foundling and according to jurisprudence, foundling is a class of natural born
citizens. Poe also satisfies the 10 year residency requirement. Her stay in the PH as an alien can be
counted so long as she has shown intent to permanently reside in the PH.

Section 3: VP shall have same qualifications and term and elected the same way as President. He may
be removed in the same manner as President.

The VP may be appointed as a Cabinet member. No confirmation is required.


Funa vs Executive Secretary – The appointment in this case violates ART 7 Sec. 13. The exceptions to
the rule are the VP and those allowed in the appointed capacity if provided by law or his primary
function.

Section 4: President and VP shall be elected by direct vote for a term of 6 years which shall begin at the
30th day of June at noon and shall end at the same date, 6 years after.

President is not eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded President and has serve for
more than 4 years shall be qualified to the same office at any time.

No VP shall serve for more than 2 successive terms. Voluntary renunciation shall not be considered as
interruption.

Unless provided by law, election shall be held at 2nd Monday of May.

Returns for election of President and VP, duly certified by board of canvasser, shall be transmitted to
Congress, directed to Senate President. Upon receipt, The Senate President shall, not later than 30
days after day of election, open all certificates in presence of Congress in joint session, and the
Congress, upon determination of authenticity and due execution in the manner provided by law,
canvass the votes.

Person having highest number shall be proclaimed elected. In case of tie, one of them shall be chosen
by vote of majority of all members of Congress, voting separately.

Congress shall promulgate its rules for canvassing. The SC, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of President and VP, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.

Pimentel vs Joint Committee – Even if the Congress has already adjourned, this does not affect its non-
legislative function. They have to complete the constitutional mandate to canvass the votes and
proclaim the winner. It is only when board of canvassers has completed its functions is it rendered
functus officio.

Lopez vs Senate – Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court has no power to review the
internal proceedings of Congress unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution or there is grave
abuse of discretion to have deprived other members of Congress of their congressional prerogatives.
Tecson vs Lim – Election contest can only contemplate post- election scenario. Jurisdiction of SC would
not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate before
elections are held.

Macalintal vs PET – Court and PET is only one.

Section 5 – President, VP, or Acting President shall take oath or affirmation.

Section 6 – President shall have an official Residence. Salary of President and VP shall be determined by
law and not decreased during their tenure. No increase in compensation shall take effect until after
expiration of term when such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any
other emolument from Government or any other source.

Section 7 – President and VP elect shall assume office at the beginning of their term.

If President fails to qualify, VP elect shall act as President until President shall have qualified.

If President shall not have been chosen, VP shall act President until President shall have been chosen
and qualified.

If at the beginning of the term of President, President elect shall have died or permanently disabled, VP
elect shall become President. If no President and VP shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or
died, or permanently disabled, Senate President, or in his absence, House Speaker, shall act as
President until President or VP shall have been chosen and qualified.

Congress shall, by law, provide for manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected
until President or VP shall have been qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability in the
preceding paragraph.

Section 8 – In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of President, VP
shall become President for unexpired term. In case if both, Senate President or in his absence, House
Speaker shall act as President until President and VP shall have been elected and qualified.

Congress shall by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of Acting President. He shall serve until President and VP shall have been elected and
qualified, and be subjected to same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as Acting President.
Estrada vs Desierto – Under the totality test, ERAP has resigned. There must be intent to resign and acts
of relinquishment.

Section 9: President shall nominate VP from members of Senate and HOR who shall assume office upon
confirmation of all members of both houses of Congress voting separately, when there is vacancy.

Section 10 – Congress shall, at 10 AM of 3rd day after vacancy of President or VP occurs, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of call and within 7 days, enact a law calling for special election
not earlier than 45 days or later than 60 days from such call. The bill shall be deemed certified under
ART 6 Sec 26 (2) and shall become a law upon approval on 3rd reading.

Appropriations shall be charged against any current appropriations and exempt from requirements of
ART 6 Sec 25 (4). The convening of Congress cannot be suspended nor special election be postponed.
No special election shall be called if vacancy occurs within 18 months before next presidential elections.

Section 11: When President transmits to Senate President and House Speaker his written declaration
that he is unable to discharge his powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits them a written
declaration to the contrary, VP shall be acting President.

When majority of cabinet members transmit the written declaration, VP shall be acting President.
Thereafter, when President transmits declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume powers and
duties. Meanwhile, should majority of cabinet members transmit within 5 days their written
declaration, Congress shall decide the issue. The Congress shall convene within 48 hours if not in
session without need of call.

If Congress within 10 days after receipt of last written declaration, or if not in session, 12 days after it
is required to assemble, determines by 2/3 votes of both houses voting separately, that President is
unable to discharge powers and duties, VP shall act as President. Otherwise, President shall continue
exercising his powers and duties.

Section 12: In case of serious illness of President, public shall be informed. Members of Cabinet in
charge of national security and foreign relations and Chief of Staff of AFP, shall not be denied access to
President.
Section 13 – President, VP, Cabinet Members, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not
directly or indirectly practice any profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in
any contract, franchise, or special privilege granted by Government including GOCCs and their
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as members of Constitutional Commissions, Office of the Ombudsman,
or Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including GOCCs and
subsidiaries. (If already appointed before he became President, relatives are not ousted.)

Rafael vs Embroidery – In the case at bar, except for the private sector, all the officials sit in ex officio
capacity. In order to be designated they must already be holding positions in the offices mentioned by
law. No new appointments are necessary. The representatives merely perform duties in the Board in
addition to those they already perform under their original appointment.

CLU vs Executive Secretary – EO 284 which allowed Cabinet members to hold in addition to primary
position, not more than 2 positions in government and government corporations, was declared
unconstitutional. The Constitution imposes stricter prohibition to the President and his official family
compared to ART IX – B. They may only be allowed when allowed by Constitution.

Dela Cruz vs COA – Alternate of Cabinet members are also not entitled to additional compensation.
Constitution allows cabinet officials to hold other office without additional compensation, in an ex-
officio capacity, as provided by law or required by their primary function. They are already
compensated in their principal office. Agents cannot receive better right than their principal.

Funa vs Ermita – To hold 2 positions, it must be allowed by constitution which is he shall be appointed
to hold other office without additional compensation, in an ex officio capacity, as provided by law or
required by primary function. In the case at bar it was not present.

Espiritu vs Lutgarda – Assuming appointment was invalid, decisions of de facto officers are valid.

Doromal vs Sandiganbayan – A document appearing signed by official is not a condition to be charged


by Ombudsman. He is prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in any business.
Section 14: Appointments extended by Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by
President within 90 days from his assumption or re-assumption of office.

Section 15: 2 months before next presidential elections and up to end of his term, President or Acting
President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

De Castro vs JBC – This prohibition only applies for the executive branch and not to the Judiciary. The
appointment of SC justice is a constitutional mandate of the President.

Section 16: President shall nominate, with consent of Commission on Appointments, and appoint heads
of executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of AFP from
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the
Constitution.

He shall also appoint all other officers of Government whose appointment are not provided by law and
those whom he may be authorized by law. Congress may, by law, vest appointment of other officers
lower in rank in the President alone, courts, heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

President shall have power to make appointments during recess of Congress, but such appointments
shall be effective only until disapproved by Commission on appointment or until Congress next
adjourn.

Government vs Springer – Power of appointment is in the Executive Department and membership in


voting committee is an office or executive function. The duty to look after government agencies and
property belongs to the executive.

Datu Kida vs Senate - The power to appoint OIC during interim period is necessitated by Constitutional
mandate of synchronization of national elections and unconstitutionality of shortening or lengthening
periods of elected officials. The power to appoint is essentially executive in nature. The constitution
allows him to appoint even those the law did not provide for the appointment.

Velicaria-Grafel vs OP – Midnight appointments are invalid. Appointment and transmittal letters were
not shown as issued or released before ban. Reliable evidence is receipt of MRO May 13, 2010. The
steps are appointment paper, transmittal, receipt, and acceptance. Acceptance is required.
Pimentel vs Ermita - Congress cannot impose on President the obligation to appoint automatically the
undersecretary as temporary alter ego. An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent, holds a
position of great trust and confidence. Congress cannot impose on President who her alter ego should
be.

Sarmiento vs Mison – Congress cannot expand the first sentence of the constitutional requirement on
appointments. Consent of commission on appointment is only required under the 1st sentence. A
Bureau head is not one of them.

Bautista vs Salonga – Appointment of Chairman of Commission on Human Rights is not specifically


provided in Constitution. It does not need confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.

Quintos-Deles vs CA – Sectoral Representatives require consent of Commissions on Appointments.


This is covered by those appointments vested by the Constitution in the President.

Pobre vs Mendieta – Succession theory only operates when there is an unexpired term. President can
appoint other than the junior commissioner.

Flores vs Drilon – No elective official shall be eligible to hold any public office. Congress cannot limit
President’s power to appoint to only 1 candidate.

Ruffino vs Endriga – The constitution allows heads of departments to appoint officers lower in rank. This
does not include officers that are of equal rank. The creation of an independent appointing power
inherently conflicts with President’s power to appoint.

Calderon vs Carale – Only 1st sentence needs confirmation, Congress cannot expand this.

Tarrosa vs Singson - Only 1st sentence needs confirmation, Congress cannot expand this.
Pimentel vs Ermita - Since the department secretary is the alter ego of the President, the acting
appointee to the office must have the President’s confidence. Congress, through a law, cannot impose
on the President’s obligation to appoint automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego.

Section 17: President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Lacson-Magallanes vs Pano – President has duty to execute laws and control executive department.
President has control over their actions. No appeal to Office of the President is a fatal defect. Control is
power to alter, modify, set aside what a subordinate office had done and substitute it with his own.
President may delegate some powers unless constitution commands him to perform in person. Decision
of Executive Secretary is decision of the President. Only President can revoke that decision.

Ang-Angco vs Castillo – President does not have blanket authority to remove any officer of the
government, but his power must still be subject to law. Power of control merely applies to acts not
over the actor. The inherent disciplinary power of President is subject to law such as the Civil Service
Act.

Villaluz vs Zaldivar – President has power to appoint and has power to discipline. The presidential
appointee not being in the classified service is not under the CSC.

Joson vs Torres – The power to discipline includes the power to investigate. The President has the
power to investigate local government officials. AO 23 delegates to DILG or special investigating
committee the power to investigate, not the power to discipline. The power of DILG to investigate is
based on the qualified political agency doctrine. He may delegate some powers to cabinet members
except when he is required by constitution to act or situation demands. The President’s power to
discipline comes from his power to appoint, not from his control power.

KMU vs Dir. Gen of NEDA – Under the power of control, the President may direct government entities
under the executive department to adopt a uniform ID. The provision on this power is self-executing.
The Constitution mandates the President to ensure laws are faithfully executed. EO 420 adopting a
uniform ID is designed to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and improve public service.
Drilon vs Lim – Secretary of Justice can declare local ordinance void. He has power of supervision. He
merely sees rules are followed. He cannot replace it with his own judgment.

National Artist Virgilio Almario – The discretion of the President in the matter of National Artists is
confined to the names submitted to him/her by NCCA and the CCP Boards. When the President
considered other respondents, she committed grave abuse of discretion.

Section 18 – President shall be Commander in Chief of all AFP and when necessary, he may call out such
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.

In case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires, he may, for a period not exceeding 60 days,
suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus or place the PH or any part under martial law.

Within 48 hours from proclamation or suspension, President shall submit to Congress in person or in
writing a report. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least majority of all its members, may
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which shall not be set aside by President. Upon initiative of
President, Congress may extend such, in the same manner, for a period determined by Congress, if
invasion or rebellion shall persist or public safety requires it.

Congress if not in session, shall within 24 hours from proclamation or suspension convene without need
of call.

SC may review, upon petition of any citizens, the sufficiency of factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension, and must promulgate its decision within 30 days from filing.

State of Martial law does not suspend operation of Constitution, functioning civil courts, or legislative
assemblies, nor authorize conferment of jurisdiction on military courts over civilians where civil courts
are able to function, nor automatically suspend the writ.

Suspension of writ shall only apply to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent or
directly connected with invasion.

During suspension, any person arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise
he shall be released.

Lansang vs Garcia – The conditions to suspend the writ are there must be invasion, insurrection,
rebellion, or imminent danger and public safety must require the suspension. Commander in chief has 3
powers, call out AFP, suspend the writ, and place PH or part under martial law. Court may inquire to its
validity.
Sanlakas vs Executive Secretary – President has power to call out AFP and declare state of rebellion in
the exercise of her commander in chief power.

David vs Arroyo – PP 1017 is unconstitutional as it grants GMA authority to promulgate decrees. Martial
law nor state of rebellion nor state of emergency can justify President’s exercise of emergency power.
President can only order military to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence.

Ampatuan vs DILG –The President can declare part of PH under state of emergency.

*3 types of martial law

1. Jurisdiction under military law (both peace and war)


2. Military government – Without the boundaries of US (in time of foreign war, rebellion, and civil
war)
3. Martial law proper Within US (In times of invasion, insurrection, rebellion) *PH Martial Law

Section 19: Except in cases of impeachment, or as provided in the constitution, President may grant
reprieves, commutations, pardons, and remit fines and forfeiture, after conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have power to grant amnesty with concurrence of majority of all members of Congress.

Diego vs People – Diego was sentenced to reclusion perpetua without pardon. The sentence was
incorrect because that would be a limitation on the power of the President. The discretionary exercise
of pardoning power lies with the President.

Llamas vs Orbos – Executive clemency may be granted in criminal and administrative cases.

Torres vs Gonzales – Grant of pardon and determination of terms and conditions are purely executive
acts not subject to judicial scrutiny. Acceptance of conditions of pardon imports acceptance of
condition that President will also determine whether condition has been violated.

People vs Casido – Pardon is granted by President and is a private act which must be pleaded and
proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof. Amnesty is proclaimed by
the President with the concurrence of the Congress and is a public act which the court takes judicial
notice. Pardon is granted after conviction, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons who may be
guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and
sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks forward and relieves offender from the consequences of the
offense, but does not restore political rights unless expressly stated and does not remove civil
indemnity. Amnesty looks backward and puts into oblivion the offense itself. The person released by
amnesty stands before the law as though he had committed no offense.

Cristobal vs Labrador – When pardon is granted after term of imprisonment has expired, absolute
pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. It can restore political rights.

Mosanto vs Factoran – Pardon may remove disqualification. She may apply for reappointment.
However it cannot go beyond that. Also, civil liability still subsists notwithstanding the pardon.

Risos-Vidal vs COMELEC – Political and civil rights may be restored if explicitly stated. This is ERAP’s
case.

Section 20 – President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of RP with concurrence of
Monetary Board, subject to limitations by law. Monetary Board shall, within 30 days from end of each
quarter, submit to Congress a report on its decisions on applications for loan by Government or GOCCs
which would have effect of increasing foreign debt, and other matters provided by law.

Hontiveros- Baraquel vs TRB – The act of DOTC Secretary is valid unless repudiated by the President.
This is the qualified political agency doctrine.

Land Bank vs Atlanta – The loan agreement is an executive agreement without need of concurrence of
the Senate. Accessory receives nature of principal contract or agreement.

Section 21: No treaty or International agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred by 2/3 of
all member of Senate.
Gonzales vs Hechanova – In this case, it was not established that agreement was an executive
agreement. Even assuming it was an executive agreement, it was unlawful. President has power to
enter executive agreements without legislative authority. However, he may not enter into
transactions that are prohibited by statues.

Vinuya vs Romulo – Executive department has exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse
claims against Japan. In the case at bar, Executive has already decided that it is best interest of the
country to waive all claims against Japan in Treaty of Peace. The wisdom of such decision is not for the
courts to question.

Sec 22 – President shall submit to Congress, within 30 days from opening of every regular session as
the basis of general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including
receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

Sec 23 – President shall address Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear
before it at any time.