Section 4.

​The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as
President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to
the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all certificates
in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the
manner provided by law, canvass the votes.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Presidential or Vice-Presidential Controversies

Case Facts Issue Rule Holding

(1) ​Tecson v. Lim This is the consolidation of 3 Petitions that assail Relevant to 1987 Const(Art VII)(Sec GR 161434 and GR 161634.
the nationality and thus eligibility of FPJ for the the syllabus 4)(par 7). The Supreme
TOPIC: Need for presidential elections topic: Court, sitting en banc, Election contests consist of either an election protest or a
post election issue shall be the sole judge of quo warranto which, although two distinct remedies,
GR 161824 invoked Omnibus Election Code(Sec W/N the PET all contests relating to would have one objective in view, i.e., to dislodge the
52)&(Sec 78) to call for COMELEC to exercise its constituted by the election, returns, and winning candidate from office.
jurisdiction over the case. It seeks a review of Art VII, Sec 4 qualifications of the
COMELEC’s decision through 1987 Const(Art has President or A perusal of the phraseology in the Rules of the
IX)(Sec 7). jurisdiction Vice-President, and may Presidential Electoral Tribunal would support this
over the promulgate its rules for premise. Rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of
GR 161434 and GR 161634 invoke the provisions petition [NO] the purpose. the tribunal over contests relating to the election, returns
of 1987 Const(Art VII)(Sec 4)(par 7) in assailing and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-President",
the jurisdiction of COMELEC. of the Philippines, and not of "candidates".
 Election contest can only contemplate a post-election
scenario. Only a registered candidate who would have
received either the second or third highest number of
votes could file an election protest.

GR 161434 and GR 161634 are dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

(2) ​Macalintal v. Petitioner is assailing the creation of Presidential Whether or Sec 4 Article 7 PET is constitutional.
PET Electoral Tribunal, saying that it is a separate not PET is
tribunal from the Supreme Court complemented unconstitution SECTION 12. Article 8 - ***Petitioner has no locus standi. SC even said that
TOPIC: by budget allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and al [NO] The Members of the petitioner was counsel for President Arroyo before the
Constitutionality confidential employees and that its rules allow Supreme Court and of PET when Fernando Poe Jr filed an election protest.
appointment of additional personnel. Petitioner other courts established Petitioner was an election lawyer and could have raised
says that it contravenes Sec 12 of Art 8 of the by law shall not be this issue sooner.
Constitution which prohibits the designation of designated to any agency
members of the SC and of other courts to any performing Election contests are, by their nature, judicial. Therefore,
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative quasi-judicial or they are cognizable only by courts. This did not involve
functions. administrative functions. the creation of two Supreme Courts, but only gives new
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, as it is allowed by the
Constitution. The establishment of the PET simply
constitutionalized what was statutory before the 1987
Constitution.

1935 Constitution ​– RA 1793 established an

independent PET to try, hear and decide protests
contesting the election of President and Vice-President,
where the Chief Justice was Chairman and Associate
Justices were members
1973 Constitution​​- PET was irrelevant since President
was elected only among members of the National
Assembly and the VP was constitutionally non-existent
1981​​- executive power was restored to the president
who was elected directly by the people
1985​​ – Batas Pambansa Bilang 884 was enacted to revive
the PET
1987 Constitutio​​n- It became necessary to create a
Presidential Electoral Tribunal. What we have done is to
constitutionalize what was statutory but it is not an
 infringement on the separation of powers because the
power being given to the Supreme Court is a judicial
power. (Fr. Bernas, 1986 Constitutional Commission)

It is obvious that the PET was constituted in

implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution. The intent of the Constitutional Commission
was to bestow independence to the SC as the PET to
undertake the task of deciding election protests involving
presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This
explicit grant of independence and of the plenary powers
needed to discharge this burden justifies the budget
allocation of the PET. The adoption of a separate seal was
designed simply to highlight the singularity and
exclusivity of the Tribunal's functions as a special
electoral court.

The conferment of additional jurisdiction to the Supreme

Court, with the duty characterized as an "awesome" task,
includes the means necessary to carry it into effect under
the doctrine of necessary implication.

Different electoral tribunals such as SET, HRET, with the

Supreme Court functioning as the PET, are constitutional
bodies, independent of the three departments of
government — Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary —
but not separate therefrom.

The power wielded by PET is a derivative of the plenary

judicial power allocated to courts of law, expressly
provided in the Constitution. Constitutional bodies such
as the electoral tribunals effectively exempts the
Justices-Members thereof from the prohibition in Section
12, Article VIII.

Section 5​​. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and
defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be
omitted.)
Section 6​​. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their
tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive
during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.

Section 7​​. The President-elect and the Vice-President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate
or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of
death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

Section 8​​. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or
the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

(3)​ Estrada v. In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Is Estrada a 1987 Constitution Resignation
Desierto Ejercito Estrada was elected President while President on Section 8, Article 7. Petitioner denies he resigned as President or that he
respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected leave which In case of death, suffers from a permanent disability. Hence, he submits
TOPIC: ​Filling a Vice- President. Both petitioner and the would make permanent disability, that the office of the President was not vacant when
Vacancy in respondent were to serve a six-year term respondent removal from office or respondent Arroyo took her oath as President.
Presidency, ​supra., commencing on June 30, 1998. Arroyo an resignation of the Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a
Sec. 1, Succession From the beginning of his term, however, Acting President, the Vice factual question and its elements are beyond quibble:
petitioner was plagued by a plethora of problems President? President shall become there must be an intent to resign​​ and the ​intent must
that slowly but surely eroded his popularity. His [NO] the President to serve be coupled by acts of relinquishmen​​t. The validity of a
sharp descent from power started on October 4, the unexpired term. In resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as
2000. Ilocos Sur Governor, Luis "Chavit" Singson, a case of death, permanent to form. It can be oral, written, express, or implied. As
longtime friend of the petitioner, went on air and disability, removal from long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal
accused the petitioner, his family and friends of office, or resignation of effect.
receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. The both the President and The resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted. It
next day, October 5, 2000, Senator Teofisto Vice President, the was confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press
Guingona, Jr., then the Senate Minority Leader, President of the Senate release containing his final statement, (1) he
took the floor and delivered a fiery privilege or, in case of his acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as
speech entitled "I Accuse." He accused the inability, the Speaker of President​ of the Republic albeit with reservation about its
petitioner of receiving some P220 million in the House of legality; (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the
jueteng money from Governor Singson from Representatives, shall seat of the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order
November 1998 to August 2000. He also charged then act as President to begin the healing process of our nation.​ He did not say
that the petitioner took from Governor Singson 70 until the President or he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and
million on excise tax on cigarettes intended for Vice President shall have that he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as
Ilocos Sur. The privilege speech was referred by been elected and the disability disappears;​ (3) he expressed his gratitude to
then Senate President Franklin Drilon, to the Blue qualified. the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without
Ribbon Committee (then headed by Senator doubt, he was referring to the ​past opportunity​ given him
Aquilino Pimentel) and the Committee on Justice Section 11, Article 7. to serve the people as President; (4) he assured that he
(then headed by Senator Renato Cayetano) for Whenever the President will not shirk from any ​future challenge​ that may come
joint investigation. transmits to the ahead in the same service of our country. Petitioner's
President of the Senate reference is to a ​future challenge after occupying the office
Calls for the resignation of the petitioner was made and the Speaker of the of the president which he has given up​, and (5) he called
and that he should take the “supreme House of on this supporters to join him in the promotion of a
self-sacrifice” of resignation. respondent Arroyo Representatives his constructive national spirit of reconciliation and
resigned as Secretary of the Department of Social written declaration that solidarity.​ Certainly, the national spirit of reconciliation
Welfare and Services and later asked for he is unable to discharge and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up
petitioner's resignation. However, petitioner the powers and duties of the presidency.​ The press release was petitioner's
strenuously held on to his office and refused to his office, and until he valedictory, his final act of farewell. ​His presidency is now
resign. On November 20, the Senate formally transmits to them a in the past tense.​
opened the impeachment trial of the petitioner. On written declaration to
January 16, by a vote of 11-10 the senator-judges the contrary, such Is Estrada only temporarily unable to act as Pres.?
ruled against the opening of the second envelope powers and duties shall Petitioner postulates that respondent Arroyo as Vice
which allegedly contained evidence showing that be discharged by the President has no power to adjudge the inability of the
petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank Vice-President as Acting petitioner to discharge the powers and duties of the
account under the name "Jose Velarde." The public President. presidency. His significant submittal is that "Congress has
and private prosecutors walked out in protest of Whenever a majority of the ultimate authority under the Constitution to
the ruling. In disgust, Senator Pimentel resigned as all the Members of the determine whether the President is incapable of
Senate President. Cabinet transmit to the performing his functions in the manner provided for in
President of the Senate section 11 of Article VII." This contention is the
This sparked EDSA 2. In the presence of former and to the Speaker of the centerpiece of petitioner's stance that he is a President on
Presidents Aquino and Ramos and hundreds of House of leave and respondent Arroyo is only an Acting President.
thousands of cheering demonstrators, General Representatives their Petitioner, on January 20, 2001, sent a letter claiming
Reyes declared that "on behalf of your Armed written declaration that inability to the Senate President and Speaker of the
Forces, the 130,000 strong members of the Armed the President is unable House. Unaware of the letter, respondent Arroyo took her
Forces, we wish to announce that we are to discharge the powers oath of office as President on January 20, 2001 at about
withdrawing our support to this government." A and duties of his office, 12:30 p.m. Despite receipt of the letter, the House of
little later, PNP Chief, Director General Panfilo the Vice-President shall Representatives passed on January 24, 2001 House
Lacson and the major service commanders gave a immediately assume the Resolution No. 175 which expressed their support to the
similar stunning announcement. Some Cabinet powers and duties of the assumption of office of Arroyo. The House of
secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, office as Acting Representatives passed House Resolution No. 178 which
and bureau chiefs quickly resigned from their President. confirmed Pres. Arroyo’s nomination of Sen. Guingona, Jr.
posts. as VP. The Senate also passed Resolutions (including
 Thereafter, when the
On January 20, the first round of negotiations for President transmits to
the peaceful and orderly transfer of power started the President of the
at Malacañang's Mabini Hall, Office of the Senate and to the
Executive Secretary. Chief Justice Davide Speaker of the House of
administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as Representatives his
President of the Philippines. Estrada then left a written declaration that
press statement expressing his doubts to the no inability exists, he
legality and constitutionality of Arroyo’s shall reassume the
proclamation as President. He also signed a letter powers and duties of his
saying that he is unable to exercise the powers and office. Meanwhile,
duties of the President and that by operation of should a majority of all
law and the Constitution, the VP will be the Acting the Members of the
President. On January 22, the Monday after taking Cabinet transmit within
her oath, respondent Arroyo immediately five days to the
discharged the powers and duties of the President of the Senate
Presidency. She nominated Sen. Guingona, Jr. to be and to the Speaker of the
her VP and he took his oath on February 8. House of
Representatives their
written declaration that
the President is unable
to discharge the powers
and duties of his office,
the Congress shall
decide the issue. For that
purpose, the Congress
shall convene, if it is not
in session, within
forty-eight hours, in
accordance with its rules
and without need of call.
If the Congress, within
ten days after receipt of
the last written
declaration, or, if not in
session, within twelve
days after it is required
to assemble, determines
by a two-thirds vote of
both Houses, voting
Resolution No. 82) that expressed the same sentiments as
the HoR. They also passed Senate Resolution No. 83
which recognized that the impeachment court is functus
officio (​means that its mandate has expired)​ . In fine, even
if the petitioner can prove that he did not resign, still, he
cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave
on the ground that he is merely unable to govern
temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress
and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure
President made by a co-equal branch of government
cannot be reviewed by this Court.
EDSA I v. EDSA II
Respondents rely on the case of ​Lawyers League for a
Better Philippines and/or Oliver A. Lozano v. President
Corazon C. Aquino, et al.​ and related cases to support their
thesis that since the cases at bar involve the legitimacy of
the government of respondent Arroyo, ergo, they present
a political question. A more cerebral reading of the cited
cases will show that they are inapplicable. In the cited
cases, the Court held that the government of former
President Aquino was the result of a successful
revolution by the sovereign people, albeit a peaceful one.
No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the
Aquino government was installed through a direct
exercise of the power of the Filipino people "in defiance
of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended."
It is familiar learning that the legitimacy of a government
sired by a successful revolution by people power is
beyond judicial scrutiny for that government
automatically orbits out of the constitutional loop. In
checkered contrast,the ​government of respondent
Arroyo is not revolutionary in character​​. The oath that
she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under the 1987
Constitution. In her oath, she categorically swore to
preserve and defend the 1987 Constitution. Indeed, she
has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the
presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.
In fine, the legal distinction between EDSA People Power
I and EDSA People Power II is clear. EDSA I involves the
 separately, that the exercise of the people power of revolution which
President is unable to overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise
discharge the powers of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of
and duties of his office, assembly to petition the government for redress of
the Vice-President shall grievances which only affected the office of the President.
act as the President; EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the
otherwise, the President new government that resulted from it cannot be the
shall continue exercising subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra
the powers and duties of constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President
his office. that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as
President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented
a political question; EDSA II involves legal questions.

(4) ​Estrada v. Resignation

Desierto MR Petitioner contended that his resignation was due to duress and an involuntary resignation is no resignation at all. The court held that in determining
whether a given resignation is voluntarily tendered, the ​element of voluntariness is vitiated only when the resignation is submitted under duress
brought on by government action​​. The three-part test for such duress has been stated as involving the following elements:
(1) whether one side involuntarily accepted the other's terms
(2) whether circumstances permitted no other alternative
(3) whether such circumstances were the result of coercive acts of the opposite side.
The view has also been expressed that a resignation may be found involuntary if on the totality of the circumstances it appears that the employer's conduct
in requesting resignation effectively deprived the employer of free choice in the matter. Factors to be considered, under this test, are:
(1) whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation
(2) whether the employee understood the nature of the choice he or she was given
(3) whether the employee was given a reasonable time in which to choose
(4) whether he or she was permitted to select the effective date of resignation.
In applying this totality of the circumstances test, the assessment whether real alternatives were offered must be gauged by an objective standard rather
than by the employee's purely subjective evaluation; that the employee may perceive his or her only option to be resignation is irrelevant. Similarly, the
mere fact that the choice is between comparably unpleasant alternatives does not of itself establish that a resignation was induced by duress or coercion, and
was therefore involuntary. This is so even where the only alternative to resignation is facing possible termination for cause, unless the employer actually
lacked good cause to believe that grounds for termination existed. In this regard it has also been said that a resignation resulting from a choice between
resigning or facing proceedings for dismissal is not tantamount to discharge by coercion without procedural view if the employee is given sufficient time and
opportunity for deliberation of the choice posed. Furthermore, ​a resignation by an officer charged with misconduct is not given under duress​​, though
the appropriate authority has already determined that the officer's alternative is termination, where such authority has the legal authority to terminate the
officer's employment under the particular circumstances, since ​it is not duress to threaten to do what one has the legal right to do, or to threaten to
take any measure authorized by law and the circumstances of the case. ​In the cases at bar, petitioner had several options available to him other than
resignation. He proposed to the holding of snap elections. He transmitted to the Congress a written declaration of temporary inability. He could not claim he
was forced to resign because immediately before he left Malacañang, he asked Secretary Angara: "Ed, aalis na ba ako?" which implies that he still has a choice
of whether or not to leave. To be sure, pressure was exerted for the petitioner to resign. But it is difficult to believe that the pressure completely vitiated the
voluntariness of the petitioner's resignation. The Malacañang ground was then fully protected by the Presidential Security Guard armed with tanks and
high-powered weapons. The then Chief of Staff, General Angelo Reyes, and other military officers were in Malacañang to assure that no harm would befall the
petitioner as he left the Palace. Indeed, no harm, not even a scratch, was suffered by the petitioner, the members of his family and his Cabinet who stuck it
out with him in his last hours. Certainly, there were no tanks that rumbled through the Palace, no attack planes that flew over the presidential residence, no
shooting, no large scale violence, except verbal violence, to justify the conclusion that petitioner was coerced to resign.

Temporary Inability
Petitioner argues that the Court misinterpreted the meaning of section 11, Article VII, of the Constitution in that Congress can only decide the issue of
inability when there is a variance of opinion between a majority of the Cabinet and the President. The situation presents itself when majority of the Cabinet
determines that the President is unable to govern; later, the President informs Congress that his inability has ceased but is contradicted by a majority of the
members of the Cabinet. It is also urged that the President's judgment that he is unable to govern temporarily which is thereafter communicated to the
Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate is the political question which this Court cannot review. The court dismissed his claim as he himself
made the submission that "Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his
functions in the manner provided for in section 11 of Article VII." The court sustained this submission and held that by its many acts, Congress has already
determined and dismissed the claim of alleged temporary inability to govern proffered by petitioner. The recognition of respondent Arroyo as our de jure
president made by Congress is unquestionably a political judgment. It is significant that House Resolution No. 176 cited as the bases of its judgment such
factors as the "people's loss of confidence on the ability of former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada to effectively govern" and the "members of the
international community had extended their recognition of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines" and it
has a constitutional duty "of fealty to the supreme will of the people . . .." This political judgment may be right or wrong but Congress is answerable only to
the people for its judgment. Its wisdom is fit to be debated before the tribunal of the people and not before a court of justice. Needless to state, the doctrine of
separation of power constitutes an insuperable bar against this Court's interposition of its power of judicial review to review the judgment of Congress
rejecting petitioner's claim that he is still the President, albeit on leave and that respondent Arroyo is merely an acting President.

Petitioner attempts to extricate himself from his submission that Congress has the ultimate authority to determine his inability to govern, and whose
determination is a political question by now arguing that whether one is a de jure or de facto President is a judicial question. Petitioner's change of theory
was rejected by the court. And it held that the cases at bar do not present the general issue of whether the respondent Arroyo is the de jure or a de facto
President. Specific issues were raised to the Court for resolution and it ruled on an issue by issue basis. On the issue of resignation under section 8, Article VII
of the Constitution, the Court held that the issue is legal and ruled that petitioner has resigned from office before respondent Arroyo took her oath as
President. On the issue of inability to govern under section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, the Court held that Congress has the ultimate authority to
determine the question as opined by the petitioner himself and that the determination of Congress is a political judgment which this Court cannot review.
Petitioner cannot blur these specific rulings by the generalization that whether one is a de jure or de facto President is a judicial question.

Petitioner now appears to fault Congress for its various acts expressed thru resolutions which brushed off his temporary inability to govern and
President-on-leave argument. He asserts that these acts of Congress should not be accorded any legal significance because: (1) they are post facto and (2) a
declaration of presidential incapacity cannot be implied. The court rejected this claim and stated that there is nothing in section 11 of Article VII of the
Constitution which states that the declaration by Congress of the President's inability must always be a priori or before the Vice-President assumes the
presidency. Congress was then not in session and had no reasonable opportunity to act a priori on petitioner's letter claiming inability to govern. Before the
oath- taking, Senate President Pimentel, Jr. and Speaker Fuentebella had prepared a Joint Statement expressing their support and recognition to the
constitutional successor to the Presidency. This a priori recognition by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of
respondent Arroyo as the "constitutional successor to the presidency" was followed post facto by various resolutions of the Senate and the House, in effect,
confirming this recognition. These acts of Congress, a priori and post facto, cannot be dismissed as merely implied recognitions of respondent Arroyo, as the
 president of the Republic.

Petitioner also argued that "while the Constitution has made Congress the national board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections, this
Honorable Court nonetheless remains the sole judge in presidential and vice presidential contests.” However, the Constitution clearly sets out the structure
on how vacancies and election contest in the office of the President shall be decided. Thus, ​section 7 of Article VII covers the instance when (a) the
President-elect fails to qualify, (b) if a President shall not have been chosen and (c) if at the beginning of the term of the President, the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled​​. ​Section 8 of Article VII covers the situation of the death, permanent
disability, removal from office or resignation of the President​​. ​Section 11 of Article VII covers the case where the President transmits to the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office​​. In each case, the Constitution specifies the body that will resolve the issues that may arise from the contingency. In case of election
contest, section 4, Article VII provides that the contests shall be resolved by this Court sitting en banc. ​In case of resignation of the President, it is not
disputed that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue. In case of inability to govern, section 11 of Article VII gives the Congress the power to
adjudge the issue​​ and petitioner himself submitted this thesis which was shared by this Court. In light of these clear provisions of the Constitution, it is
inappropriate, to say the least, for petitioner to make inferences that simply distort their meanings.

Section 9​​. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.

Section 10​​. The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance
with its rules without need of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five
days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution
and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be
exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed.
No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

Section 11​​. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the
Vice-President as Acting President.

Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall
reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue.
For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call.

If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote
of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as the President; otherwise, the
President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.

Section 12​​. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign
relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.

Section 13​​. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.

Prohibition against Holding Another Office or Employment

(5) ​Rafael v. Petitioner was engaged in the manufacturing of WoN RA 3137 RA 3137 No, it is constitutional. Section 2 of RA 3137 provides that
Embroidery & embroidery and apparel products for exportation, Sec.2 is Sec. 2 ​This license for the chairman and members of the Board to qualify,
Apparel Control using imported raw materials and doing business unconstitution required hereof under they only need to be designated by the respective
Board under “El Barto Alce Company”. The company was al Section One of this Act department heads. Except the rep from the private sector,
authorized by the Collector of Customs, pursuant shall be duly issued by they sit ex-officio.
TOPIC: to the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code an Embroidery and
designation and (RA 1937). Apparel Control and To be designated, they must already hold positions in the
ex-officio​ capacity Inspection Board which offices mentioned in the law. The Act does not say that
The raw materials imported were exempt from is hereby created and the designated reps will lose or forfeit their original
duty, and manufactured them into finished hereinafter referred to appointments in their “parent” offices.
products for export. as the Board, composed
of (1) A representative Further, Section 2 does not violate the established
On June 17, 1961 ​RA 3137 was enacted,​ creating from the Bureau of doctrine that “the appointing power is the exclusive
an embroidery and apparel control and inspection Customs to act as prerogative of the President, upon which no limitations
board. Section 2 provided that it was to be Chairman, to be may be imposed by Congress”.
composed of representatives from the: designated by the
1) Bureau of Customs to act as Chairman, to Secretary of Finance; (2) It is significant that Congress took care to specify that the
be designated by the Secretary of Finance A representative from reps must come from the Bureau of Customs, Central
2) Central Bank to be designated by its the Central Bank to be Bank, Dept of Commerce and Industry, and the Nat’l
Governor designated by its Economic Council. It is obviously because these depts/
3) Department of Commerce and Industry Governor; (3) A bureaus perform function with a direct relation to the
4) National Economic Council to be representative from the importation of raw mat’ls, its manufacturing into
designated by its Chairman Department of embroidery and apparel products, and its exportation
5) Private sector, coming from the Commerce and Industry abroad. Further, respondent PAEAE was chosen as it is
 Association of Embroidery and Apparel to be designated by the the dominant organization under the field. There is no
Exporters of the Philippines Secretary of Commerce attempt in RA 3137 to deprive the President of his power
and Industry; (4) A to make appointments.
Upon recommendation of the PH Association of representative from the
Embroidery and Apparel Exporters Inc (PAEAE). National Economic
The DOF named Quintin Santiago (the association Council to be designated
president) as the rep of the private sector. Another by its Chairman; (5) A
organization, the PH Chamber of Embroidery and representative from the
Apparel Producers, Inc. (to which petitioner Rafael private sector coming
was affiliated) questioned the choice, since its own from the Association of
nominee to the Board had been rejected. Embroidery and Apparel
Exporters of the
The Board referenced RA 3137, stating that the Philippines.
association referred to in Section 2 of the Act was
the respondent association itself. The Board then Art. VII Section 10 (3)
requested petitioner to submit to the Board 1935 Consti:​​ The
pertinent data called for in the EACIB Form No.1, President shall nominate
as well as asking petitioner to remit with the and with the consent of
application the amount of Php200 to be charged the Commission on
against petitioner’s future assessments as per RA Appointments, shall
3137 par. XVI. appoint the heads of the
executive departments
Petitioner did not comply and instead filed for and bureaus, officers of
prohibition with preliminary injunction, asking the Army from the rank
that RA 3137 be declared unconstitutional, among of colonel, of the Navy
others. The result was unfavorable, and so upon and Air Forces from the
appeal petitioner argued that while Congress can rank of captain or
create an office, it cannot specify who shall be commander, and all
appointed therein, and that the Board members other officers of the
can only be appointed by the President in Government whose
accordance with​ Art. VII Sec. 10(3)​ of the appointments are not
Constitution; and that as the Act prescribes that herein otherwise
the members of the Board must come from provided for, and those
specified offices, it is Congress who chooses who whom he may be
should be appointed thus infringing the authorized by law to
constitutional power of the President to make appoint; but the
appointments. Congress may by law
vest the appointment of
inferior officers, in the
President alone, in the
 courts, or in the heads of
departments.

(6) ​CLU v. Exec. On the basis of the Sec of Justice’s Opinion No 73, Does the 1987 Const(Art VII) In Art XVI, disqualification prohibition pertains to an
Secretary Pres Aquino issued EO 284. prohibition in Sec 13. The President, office or employment in the government and
Section 13, Vice-President, the government-owned or controlled corporations or their
TOPIC: stricter EO 284 states, “xxx a member of the Cabinet, Article VII of Members of the Cabinet, subsidiaries. Thus, all other appointive officials in the
prohibition on the undersecretary or assistant secretary or other the 1987 and their deputies or civil service are allowed to hold other office or
President’s official appointive officials of the Executive Department Constitution assistants shall not, employment in the government during their tenure when
family against may, in addition to his primary position, hold not insofar as unless otherwise such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of
multiple offices more than two positions in the government and Cabinet provided in this their positions.
government corporations and receive the members, Constitution, hold any
corresponding compensation therefor xxx”, which their deputies other office or In Art VII, disqualification is absolute, not being qualified
means that it allows the same people to hold other or assistants employment during by the phrase "in the Government." The prohibition
positions in the government. are concerned their tenure. They shall imposed on the President and his official family is
admit of the not, during said tenure, therefore all-embracing and covers both public and
broad directly or indirectly private office or employment.
exceptions practice any other
made for profession, participate in Intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a
appointive any business, or be stricter prohibition on the President and his official
officials in financially interested in family in so far as holding other offices or employment in
general under any contract with, or in the government or elsewhere is concerned.
Section 7, par. any franchise, or special
(2), Article privilege granted by the The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices
IX-B? Government or any or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the
subdivision, agency, or Constitution must not, however, be construed as applying
instrumentality thereof, to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified
including therein without additional compensation in an ex-officio
government-owned or capacity as provided by law and as required by the
controlled corporations primary functions of said officials' office. The reason is
or their subsidiaries. that these posts do no comprise "any other office" within
They shall strictly avoid the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but
conflict of interest in the are properly an imposition of additional duties and
conduct of their office." functions on said officials. To characterize these posts
otherwise would lead to absurd consequences.
1987 Const(Art IX-B. The
Civil Service EO 284, is unconstitutional.
Commission)(Sec 7). No
elective official shall be
eligible for appointment
 or designation in any
capacity to any public
office or position during
his tenure.
Unless otherwise
allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his
position, no appointive
official shall hold any
other office or
employment in the
Government or any
subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof,
including
government-owned or
controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries.

(7)​ De la Cruz v. Petitioners were members of the Board of Whether or PD 757 SEC. 7. Board of YES.
COA Directors of the National Housing Authority (NHA) not the Directors. — The In the SC decision in the case of Civil Liberties Union it
from 1991 to 1996. petitioners Authority shall be was held:
TOPIC: alternates allowed to governed by a "The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices
of Cabinet On September 19, 1997, the COA issued receive the Board of Directors, or employment under Section 13, Article VII of the
member are also Memorandum No. 97-038 2 directing all unit additional hereinafter referred to Constitution must not be construed as applying to posts
not entitled to heads/auditors/team leaders of the national compensation as the Board, which shall occupied by the Executive officials specified therein
additional government agencies and government-owned be composed of the without
compensation; see and controlled corporations which have effected Secretary of Public additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as
also Bitonio v. COA payment of any form of additional compensation Works, Transportation provided by law and as required by the primary functions
and Nat’l Amnesty or remuneration to cabinet secretaries, their and Communication, the of said officials' office. The reason is that these posts do
Com v. COA deputies and assistants, or their representatives, in Director-General of the not comprise any other office' within the contemplation
violation of the rule on multiple positions, to (a) National Economic and of the
immediately cause the disallowance of such Development Authority, constitutional prohibition but are properly an imposition
additional compensation and (b) effect the refund the Secretary of Finance, of additional duties and functions on said officials.
of the same from the time of the finality of the the Secretary of Labor, (this portion is saying, additional compensation means
Supreme Court En Banc Decision in the the Secretary of additional posts)
consolidated cases of Civil Liberties Union vs. Industry, the
Executive Secretary and Anti-Graft League of the Executive Secretary and According to the Presidential Decree creating the NHA -
Philippines, Inc, et al. vs. Secretary of Agrarian the General Manager of The members of the Board may have their respective
Reform, et al., promulgated on February 22, 1991. the Authority . From alternates who shall be the officials next in rank to them
 among the members, the and
The COA Memorandum further stated that the said President will appoint a whose acts shall be considered the acts of their principals
Supreme Court Decision, which became final and chairman. T​he with the right to receive their benefit.
executory on August 19, 1991, declared ​Executive members of the Board
Order No. 284 unconstitutional insofar may have their Although the petitioners are not members expressly
as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies respective alternates provided in Sec 7 enumerating the members of the Board
and assistants to hold other offices, in addition who shall be the of Directors of NHA, they are their respective alternates.
to their primary offices, and to receive officials next in rank to Their positions are merely derivative; they derive their
compensation therefor. them and authority as agents of the authority they are
whose acts shall be representing.
Accordingly, on October 23, 1997, NHA Resident considered the acts of
Auditor Salvador J. Vasquez issued ​Notice of their principals with Since the Executive Department Secretaries, as ex-officio
Disallowance ​No. 97-011-061 5 ​disallowing in the right to receive members of the NHA Board, are prohibited from
audit the payment of representation their benefit​​: Provided, receiving "extra (additional) compensation"​ it follows
allowances and per diems of "Cabinet members that in the absence of the that petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot
who were the ex-officio members of the NHA Chairman, the Board likewise be entitled to receive such compensation. A
Board of Directors and/or their respective shall elect a temporary contrary rule would give petitioners a better right
alternates who actually presiding officer. . . . than their principals.
received the payments."​​ The total disallowed (Italics ours)
amount of P276,600.

Petitioners are saying that they are not Cabinet

members or deputies or assistants that are
prohibited to hold other offices, in addition to their
primary offices, and to receive compensation
therefor.

(8)​ Funa v. On October 4, 2006, Pres. Arroyo appointed Maria Did the 1987 Constitution: Yes, the designation of Bautista as OIC, Office of the
Ermita Elena Bautista as Undersecretary of the designation of Article 7, Section 13. Administrator, Maritime Industry Authority, in a
Department of Transportation and Bautista as The President, concurrent capacity with her position as DOTC
TOPIC: in relation Communications (DOTC). A few days later, she was OIC of Vice-President, the Undersecretary for Maritime Transport is
to Art 9-B Sec 7 designated as Undersecretary for Maritime MARINA, Members of the Cabinet, unconstitutional.
Transport of the department under Special Order concurrent and their ​deputies or
No. 2006-171. On September 2008, following the with the assistants​​ shall not, It was held in ​Civil Liberties Union​ that the prohibition
resignation of MARINA Administrator Suazo, Jr., position of unless otherwise against holding dual or multiple offices or employment
Bautista was designated as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), DOTC provided in this under Section 13, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution was
Office of the Administrator, MARINA, in concurrent Undersecretar Constitution, hold any held inapplicable to posts occupied by the Executive
capacity as DOTC Undersecretary. During the y for Maritime other office or officials specified therein, without additional
pendency of the petition, Bautista was appointed Transport to employment during compensation in an ex officio capacity (no need for
MARINA Administrator and she assumed her which she had their tenure. They shall designation/appointment) as provided by law and as
duties and responsibilities as such on February been not, during said tenure, required by the primary functions of said office. It is
2009. appointed, directly or indirectly, because these posts do not compromise “any other office”
violated the practice any other within the contemplation of the constitutional
Petitioner is questioning the constitutionality of constitutional profession, participate in prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional
Bautista’s appointment/designation in violation of proscription any business, or be duties and functions on said officials. But then the
Section 13, Article 7 of the Constitution. While it against dual or financially interested in respondents failed to show that Bautista’s designation
was pointed out in ​Civil Liberties ​case that multiple any contract with, or in was in an ex officio capacity as required by primary
prohibition does not apply to positions held in ex offices for any franchise, or special functions of her office as DOTC Undersecretary of
officio capacities, the position of MARINA Cabinet privilege granted by the Maritime Transport.
Administrator is not an ex-officio to the post of members and Government or any
DOTC Undersecretary for the Administrative Code their deputies subdivision, agency, or Background on MARINA
of 1987 does not provide any ex officio role for the and instrumentality thereof, MARINA was created by virtue of PD 474 issued by Pres.
undersecretaries. He further argues that assistants? including Marcos which mandated them to adopt and implement
temporary appointment/designation can be [YES] government-owned or practicable and coordinated Maritime Industry
circumvented for it does not have a maximum controlled corporations Development Program and to supervise, regulate, and
duration. He proposed that they should have Appointment or their subsidiaries. rationalize organizational management, ownership, and
designated one of the two Deputy Administrators v. They shall strictly avoid operations of all water transport utilities, and other
as the Acting Administrator for they are in a better Designation conflict of interest in the maritime enterprises. Its management is vested in the
position in terms of knowledge and experience. conduct of their office. Maritime Administrator who is directly assisted by the
Furthermore, there is an incompatibility between Appointment Deputy Administrator for Planning and a Deputy
the post of of DOTC Undersecretary and MARINA (essentially Article 9-B, Section 7 Administrator for Operations (6 year term). With the
Administrator for the recommendations of executive in (par. 2). Unless creation of DOTC by virtue of EO 546, MARINA was
MARINA Admin may be the subject of counter nature): otherwise allowed by attached to DOTC for policy and program coordination.
recommendation from Undersecretary of Marina selection, by law or by the primary MARINA’s responsibilities increased with the issuance of
Transport but now, they are one person meaning the authority functions of his EO 1011 (abolished Board of Transportation and
that there would be no more checking and vested with position​​, no appointive transferred quasi-judicial function pertaining to water
counter-checking of powers and functions. the power, of official shall hold any transportation to MARINA), EO 125 (regorganized DOTC
an individual other office or and defined the powers and functions of the departments
to exercise the employment in the and agencies under its umbrella), and RA 9295 (Domestic
functions of a Government or any Shipping Development Act of 2004-- strengthened
given office subdivision, agency or MARINA’s regulatory powers and functions in the
and results in instrumentality thereof, shipping sector).
security of including
tenure unless government-owned or Respondents aver that Bautista’s designation as OIC of
replaceable at controlled corporations MARINA was merely an imposition of additional duties
pleasure. or their subsidiaries. related to her primary position as DOTC Undersecretary
for Maritime Transport but the Court found that the
Designation DOTC Undersecretary for Maritime Transport is not even
(essentially a member of the Maritime Industry Board. They also
legislative in stated that she was never really appointed but the court
 nature): held that while the designation was in the nature of an
imposition by acting and temporary capacity, the words “hold the
law of office” were employed and it pertains to both
additional appointment and designation because the appointee or
duties on an designated performs the duties and functions of the
incumbent office. ​Section 13 refers to the holding of an office and
official (ex. not to the nature of the appointment or designation​​.
Secretary of Such words were not even found in both Section 13,
Tourism Article 7 and Section 7, Article 9-B. To “hold” an office
designated as means to to “possess or occupy” the same, or “to be in
Chairman of possession and administration,” which implies nothing
the Board of less than the actual discharge of the functions and duties
Directors of of the office. It was also held that the incompatibility of
the Philippine the offices is irrelevant in the case.
Tourism
Authority) The disqualifications laid down in Section 13 is aimed at
preventing the concentration of powers in the Executive
department officials which could lead to abuse of power
by officials for purposes of self-enrichment.

(9) ​Funa v. On October 2006, President GMA appointed WoN the Art. VII Sec. 13 (1): ​The Yes, it violates the proscription against multiple offices.
Executive respondent Bautista as Undersecretary for designation of President, Art.VII Sec. 13 of the Constitution provides the
Secretary Maritime Transport of the DOTC (Department of respondent Vice-President, the prohibition not just for the Pres, VP, and Cabinet
Transport and Communications). On Sept 200, Bautista as Members of the Cabinet, Members, but of their deputies and assistants as well.
TOPIC: exception after the resignation of then MARINA MARINA’s OIC, and their deputies or These people may not hold any other office/ employment
to the general rule Administrator, Bautista was designated as OIC concurrent assistants shall not, during their tenure.
of prohibition to (Officer in Charge), in concurrent capacity as DOTC with the unless otherwise
hold other gov’t Undersecretary. position of provided in this However, Art. IX-B Sec. 7(2) provides that ​unless
offices, supra Art. DOTC Constitution,​ hold any otherwise allowed by law/ the primary functions of his
VII, Sec 3 Dennis Funa then filed a petition challenging the Undersecretar other office or position​, n
​ o appointive official can hold any other
constitutionality of Bautista’s appointment/ y violates the employment during office/ employment in the gov’t​ or any subdivision,
designation, which is proscribed by the prohibition constitutional their tenure.​ They shall agency, or instrumentality thereof.
on the Pres, VP, Cabinet Members, and their proscription not, during said tenure,
deputies + assistants to hold any other office/ against dual/ directly or indirectly, The prohibition imposed on the President and his official
employment. multiple practice any other family is all-embracing, and the disqualification is
offices for profession, participate in absolute as the holding of “any other office” is not
Petitioner argues that Bautista’s concurrent Cabinet any business, or be qualified by the phrase “in the gov’t”. It is the intent of the
positions as DOTC Undersecretary and MARINA Members and financially interested in Constitution to treat the President and his official family
OIC violates Art. VII Sec. 13 of the Constitution. He their any contract with, or in as a class by itself and​ impose on them stricter
pointed out that (acc. To civil liberties union v. deputies/ any franchise, or special prohibitions (​ as compared to the prohibition for
 exec sec) the prohibition doesn’t apply to positions
held in ex-officio capacities, the position of
MARINA administrator is not ex-officio to the post
of DOTC Undersecretary.
Further, the provisions on the DOTC in the Admin
Code do not provide any ex-officio role for
undersecretaries in any of the dept’s attached
agencies. Petitioner further contends that even if
Bautista’s appointment/ designation as MARINA’s
OIC was only temporary, such designation still
must not violate a constitutional prohibition. The
Constitution did not enumerate temporariness as
one of the exceptions, and since a temporary
designation does not have a maximum duration, it
can go on for months or years thus circumventing
the prohibition.
Respondents argue that there is no longer an
actual controversy, as Bautista relinquished her
post as DOTC Undersecretary, and that she was
merely designated as Marina OIC, not MARINA
administrator.
(10) ​Espiritu v. Del Rosario, owners of Lot Nos. 854 and 855 in
Lutgarda Pampanga , requested that these be exempt from
the coverage of the CARP. Initially granted by
former Sec if Agrarian Reform, but later reversed
by a MR instituted by farmers in the landholding.
Del Rosario appeals to the new Sec of Agrarian
Reform and to the Office of the President through
the Dep Sec, but these were denied. Upon appeal at
assistants privilege granted by the Senators and HoR members).
Government or any
subdivision, agency, or As Bautista is the appointed Undersecretary of DOTC, she
instrumentality thereof, is under the stricter prohibition in Art. VII Sec. 14 and
including cannot invoke the exception in Art. IC-B Sec. 7(2) where
government-owned or holding another office is allowed by law/ the primary
controlled corporations functions of the position. She was also not designated as
or their subsidiaries. OIC of MARINA in an​ ex-officio capacity,​ which is the
exception recognized in​ Civil Liberties Union​.
Respondents’ theory that being just a temporary
“designation”, Bautista was never really “appointed” as
OIC Administrator is untenable. In the case of ​Binamira,​
appointment and designation were distinguished as:
Appointment - selection by the authority vested with the
power of an individual, and who is to exercise the
functions of a given office
Designation - imposition by law of additional duties on an
incumbent official (implication of temporary capacity in
holding the office​)
“Holding of office” can actually pertain to both
appointment and designation as both appointee and
designate​ perform the duties and functions of the office​.
The Constitution prohibits dual or multiple offices,
including incompatible offices, and ​refers to the holding
of the office, not the nature of appointment or
designation​.
W/N CA 1987 Const(Art VII)(Sec Assuming that Gaite's appointment became effective on
correctly set 13): March 16, 2009, he can be considered a de facto officer at
aside the The President, the time he rendered the decision dated May 7, 2009.
decision of Vice-President, the
Dep Sec Gaite Members of the Cabinet, Funa v. Agra: Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer
and their deputies or are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure
assistants shall not, officer, in so far as the public or third persons who are
unless otherwise interested therein are concerned.
CA, she argued, (1) that she was denied due provided in this
process when the order of Secretary Pangandaman Constitution, hold any Assuming that Gaite was a de facto officer of the Office of
was "erroneously sent to another address" 25 and other office or the President after his appointment to the Securities and
(2) that the decision of then Deputy Executive employment during Exchange Commission, any decision he renders during
Secretary Gaite was void since he had been their tenure. They shall this time is presumed to be valid, binding, and effective.
appointed to the Securities and Exchange not, during said tenure, With Gaite being a public officer, his acts also enjoy the
Commission on March 16, 2009, two months prior directly or indirectly, presumption of regularity
to the rendering of the decision. practice any other
profession, participate in
CA granted her Petition and said that the decision any business, or be
by Gaite was void since it violated Art VII(Sec 13) financially interested in
any contract with, or in
Farmer-leaders filed this Petition for review on any franchise, or special
certiorari. privilege granted by the
Government or any
subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof,
including
government-owned or
controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries.
They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the
conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives
by consanguinity or
affinity within the fourth
civil degree of the
President shall not
during his tenure be
appointed as members
of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the
Office of the
Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries,
Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices,
including
 government-owned or
controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries.

Other Prohibitions

(11)​ Doromal v. Petitioner Doromal was a former Commissioner of WoN the facts Section 13​​.​ The YES, but a new preliminary investigation has to be
Sandiganbayan Presidential Commission of Good Governance alleged to President, conducted.
(PCGG) when as president and director of the Doromal Vice-President, the
TOPIC: prohibited Doromal International Trading Corporation constituted Members of the The petitioner's right to a preliminary investigation of
participation in a (DITC), DITC submitted bids to supply P61 million the offense Cabinet, and their the new charge is secured. However, as the absence of a
contract with the worth of electronic, electrical, automotive, charge deputies or assistants preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the
government; mechanical and airconditioning equipment to the (violation of shall not​​, unless complaint or information, the proceedings upon such
indirect interest Department of Education, Culture and Sports (or Sec 13 of Art 7 otherwise provided in information in the Sandiganbayan should be ​held in
DECS) and the National Manpower and Youth of Consti) this Constitution, hold abeyance and the case should be remanded to the
Council (or NMYC). any other office or office of the Ombudsman for him or the Special
employment during Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
The first information filed regarding this criminal their tenure. ​They shall
case was quashed because it was not first not, during said Moreover, the charge against him had been changed, as
approved by the Ombudsman which was required tenure, directly or directed by the Ombudsman.
by the 1987 Constitution indirectly, practice any First ​information charge that the DITC —
other profession, "entered into a business transaction or contract with the
The special prosecutor then sought the approval of participate in any Department of Education,
the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman advised him to business, or be Culture and Sports and the National Manpower and
make some changes and thus the information that financially interested Youth Council, . . .
was duly approved​​ said: in any contract with, or New​​ information in Criminal Case No. 12883 alleges that
“the above-named accused [Doromal], a public in any franchise, or the petitioner:
officer, being then a Commissioner of the special privilege "unlawfully participate[d] in a business through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government, did granted by the Doromal International Trading Corporation, a family
then and Government or any corporation of which he is the President, and which
there wilfully and unlawfully, participate in a subdivision, agency, or company participated in the biddings conducted by the
business through the Doromal International instrumentality Department of Education,
Trading Corporation, a family corporation of which thereof, including Culture and Sports and the National Manpower & Youth
he is the government-owned or Council, which act or participation is prohibited by law
President, and which company participated in the controlled and the constitution." (p. 68, Rollo.)
biddings conducted by the Department of corporations or their
Education, Culture and Sports and the National subsidiarie​​s. They shall The Ombudsman indicated in his
Manpower & Youth Council, which act or strictly avoid conflict of Memorandum/Clearance to the Special Prosecutor, that
participation is prohibited by law and the interest in the conduct of the petitioner "can rightfully be charged . . . with having
constitution." their office. participated in a business which act is absolutely
 prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution"
because "the DITC remained a family
corporation in which ​Doromal has at least an indirect
interest." Thus, the information alleged against
Doromal did constitute the offense charged.

Since the petitioner is an incumbent public official

charged in a valid information with an offense punishable
under the Constitution and the laws (RA 3019 and PD
807), the law's
command that he "shall be suspended from office"
pendente lite must be obeyed. However, he should not
only be suspended for a reasonable period. Thus his
indefinite suspension was lifted.

Section 14​​. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office.

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

Temporary Appointments

(12)​ De Castro v. The compulsory retirement of CJ Reynato Puno by Can the 1987 Constitution Yes, the President can appoint CJ Puno’s successor.
JBC May 17, 2010 occurs just days after the coming incumbent
presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Under President Section 4(1), Article 8. The court held that had the framers intended to extend
TOPIC: reversal of Section 491), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII, appoint the The Supreme Court shall the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article 7 to the
Valenzuela ruling that “vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from successor of be composed of a Chief appointment of the members of the Supreme Court, they
the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least 3 Chief Justice Justice and fourteen could have explicitly done so. That such specification was
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council Puno upon his Associate Justices. It may not done only reveals that the prohibition against the
for every vacancy. On December 22, 2009, Cong. retirement? sit en banc or in its President or Acting President making appointments
Defensor, an ex officio member of JBC, addressed a [YES] discretion, in division of within 2 months before the next presidential elections
letter to the JBC requesting that the process for three, five, or seven and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s
nominations to the office of the CJ be commenced Members. ​Any vacancy term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme
immediately. JBC then passed a resolution to start shall be filled within Court.
the process of filling up the position of CJ and ninety days from the
published its announcement on January 20, 2010 occurrence thereof​​. Valenzuela Ruling
in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine The case of ​In Re Appointments Dates March 30, 19998 of
Star stating that it is accepting applications and Deliberations of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Villarta as
recommendations. They automatically considered ConCom ​(as cited in Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City
the 5 most senior Associate Justices (Carpio, Valenzuela)​: and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City (Valenzuela)​ involved
Corona, Morals, Velasco, Jr., and Nachura) but The commission later appointment of RTC judges and here, the court held that
Velasco and Nachura declined. There were others approved a proposal of Section 15, Article 7 prohibited the exercise by the
that applied or got nominated. JBC then resolved to Commissioner Hilario G. President of the power to appoint to judicial positions
proceed to the next step of announcing the names Davide, Jr. (now a during the period therein fixed. The OSG posits that the
of the candidates (Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Member of this Court) to Valenzuela​ ruling also recognized that the filling of
Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, and Sandoval) to invite add to what is now vacancies in the Judiciary is undoubtedly in the public
the public to file their sworn complaint, written Section 9 of Article VIII, interest, most especially if there is any compelling reason
report, or opposition, if any. The announcement the following paragraph: to justify the making of the appointments during the
came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The WITH RESPECT TO period of prohibition.
Philippine Star. LOWER COURTS, THE
PRESIDENT SHALL Although the ​Valenzuela​ came to hold that the prohibition
The conflicting opinions on the issue are the ISSUE THE covered even judicial appointments, the ​Valenzuela
following: one side holds that the incumbent APPOINTMENT WITHIN dictum did not firmly rest on the deliberations of the
President is prohibited from making appointments NINETY DAYS FROM Constitutional Commission. Thereby, the confirmation
within 2 months immediately before the coming THE SUBMISSION OF made to the JBC by then Senior Associate Justice
presidential elections and until the end of her term THE LIST (of nominees Regalado, a former member of the Constitutional
of office as President while the other insists that by the Judicial and Bar Commission, about the prohibition not being intended to
the prohibition applies only to executive positions Council to the apply to the appointments to the Judiciary, which
that may influence the election, and paramount President). Davide confirmation ​Valenzuela​ even expressly mentioned,
national interest justifies the appointment of a stated that his purpose should prevail. It adverted to the intent of the framers in
Chief justice during the election ban. This impelled was to provide a uniform the genesis of Section 4(1), Article 8 but this reference
JBC to defer the decision to whom to send its list of rule for lower courts. did not advance or support the result in ​Valenzuela.​ Far
at least 3 nominees, whether to the incumbent According to him, the to the contrary, the records disclosed the express intent
President or to her successor. 90-day period should be of the framers to enshrine in the Constitution, upon the
counted from initiative of Commissioner Eulogio Lerum, a command to
Petitioners Arturo De Castro, John Peralta, and submission of the list of the President to fill up any vacancy therein within 90
PHILCONSA commenced special civil actions for nominees to the days from its occurrence, which even Valenzuela
mandamus praying that the JBC be compelled to President in view of the conceded. The exchanges during deliberations of the
submit to the incumbent President the list of at possibility that the Constitutional Commission on October 8, 1986 further
least 3 nominees for the position of the next Chief President might reject show that the filling of a vacancy in the Supreme Court
Justice. De Castro contends that JBC acted with the list submitted to him within the 90-day period was a true mandate for the
grave abuse of discretion in deferring the and the JBC thus need President.
submission of the list of nominees to the President. more time to submit a
PHILCONSA submits that now is the time to revisit new one. The usage of the word “shall” in Section 4(1) imposes on
and review the ​Valenzuela r​ uling. the President the imperative duty to make an
On the other hand, appointment of a Member of the Supreme Court within
Section 15, Article VII - 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy and failure to
which in effect deprives do so would be a disobedience to the Constitution. This
the President of his cannot be defeated by mere judicial interpretation in
 appointing power two Valenzuela​ to the effect that Section 15 prevailed because
months immediately it was couched in stronger negative language. The case
before the next arbitrarily ignored the express intent of the ConCom to
presidential elections up have Section 4(10 stand independently of any other
to the end of his term - provision and further ignored that the 2 provisions had
was approved without no irreconcilable conflict. Consequently, prohibiting the
discussion. incumbent President from appointing a CJ on the premise
that Section 15, Article 7 extends to appointments in the
Judiciary cannot be sustained. A misinterpretation like
Valenzuela​ should not be allowed to last after its false
premises have been exposed. ​Valenzuela​ now deserves to
be quickly sent to the dustbin of unworthy and
forgettable.

Section 16​​. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The
Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until
after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Nature of the Appointing Power

(13)​ Government The ​National Coal Company​ (NCC) is a
v. Springer corporation organized by virtue of ​Act 2705​ of the
PH legislature, as amended by ​Act 2822 and of the
TOPIC: power to Corporation Law​. By the terms of the corporation
appoint as charter, the Governor-General was directed to
executive subscribe on behalf of the gov’t of the PH for at
least 50% of the capital of the corporation. The
Gov’t eventually became the owner of more than
90% of the 30,000 outstanding shares of stock of
the NCC.
On Nov. 1926, the Governor-General promulgated
EO 37,​ with reference being made to the opinions
of the Judge Advocate General of the US Army and
of the Acting Att-General of the US where it was
held that the ​provisions of the statutes passed by
WoN the No, they cannot. It is beyond the power of any branch of
Senate the Gov’t of the PH Islands to exercise its functions in any
President and other way than that prescribed by the Organic Law/ local
the Speaker of laws which conform to the Organic Law.The ​Organic Act
the HoR can vests “​the supreme executive power” to the
validly elect Governor-General of the PH, and is given “general
the Board supervision and control of all the departments and
Members of bureaus of the gov’t of the PH as long as it is not
the NCC inconsistent with the provisions of this Act​”.
The gov-gen’s authority is made secure by the proviso
"that all executive functions of Government must be
directly under the Governor-General or within one of the
executive departments under the supervision and control
of the Governor-General." ​(Organic Act, secs. 21, 22.).
 the PH Legislature creating a voting committee Under the Organic law, the PH legislature can create
or board of control are nullities.​ On the account offices, in this case the NCC. It is the executive
of the invalidity of the portions of the Acts creating department that has the power to appoint public officials
the voting committee or board of control, ​the (with the exception of officers and employees for the
Governor-General would exercise exclusively the Legislature, etc.). As the NCC is a GOCC of the gov’t, it is
duties and powers assumed by the voting the executive that has the authority to appoint from it’s
committee or board of control.​ Notice of the positions, including the directors.
contents of this EO were sent to the Senate
President and Speaker of the HoR.

A meeting of the stockholders of the NCC was held,

for the purpose of electing the directors. Prior, the
Senate President and Speaker of the HoR, as
members of the voting committee, requested the
Gov - Gen to convene the meeting on December, to
decide on the matter in which the Gov’t in the NCC
should be voted, to which the Gov - Gen did not
participate. It was resolved anyway in the meeting
of the stockholders that the votes represented by
the stock of the Gov’t in the NCC should be ​cast in
favor of 4 specified persons for directors of the
company.​ The Gov-Gen however, thru his
representative, asserted the sole power to vote the
stock of the gov’t. The vote cast by the Senate
President and Speaker of the HoR was in favor of
Barretto, Springer, Costas, Hilario, Ingersoll, and
the vote cast by the Gov-Gen, thru his
representative , was for Barretto, Agcaoili,
Ingersoll, Heath, and Lagdameo. The chair declared
the ballot cast by the Senate Pres. and Speaker of
the HoR as the directors of the NCC, despite the
issued EO 37 and the Gov-gen’s objection

(14) ​Datu In Abas Kida v. Senate (2011), it assailed the W/N the OICs Art VII The first group of appointment in paragraph 1 are vested
Michael Abas validity of RA 10153 which synchronized the were valid in the President by the Constitution, pertains to the
Kida v. Senate of electionsof ARMM with the national elections.. SC appointments SECTION 16. The appointive officials who have to be confirmed by the
the Philippines ruled that it is constitutional. President shall nominate Commission on Appointments.
and, with the consent of
TOPIC: In the MR, PT assail the validity of the the Commission on The second paragraph acts as the "catch-all provision" for
interpretation of appointments made by the President as an interim Appointments, appoint the President's appointment power, in recognition of the
power of measure due to the postponement of ARMM the heads of the
President to elections claiming that the appointing power is executive departments,
appoint OICs limited to appointed officials, not elective officials. ambassadors, other
public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval
captain, and other
officers whose
appointments are vested
in him in this
Constitution. He shall
also appoint all other
officers of the
Government whose
appointments are not
otherwise provided for
by law, and those whom
he may be authorized by
law to appoint. The
Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of
other officers lower in
rank in the President
alone, in the courts, or in
the heads of
departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
The President shall have
the power to make
appointments during the
recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such
appointments shall be
effective only until after
disapproval by the
Commission on
Appointments or until
fact that the power to appoint is essentially executive in
nature.
The wide latitude given to the President to appoint is
further demonstrated by the recognition of the
President's power to appoint officials whose
appointments are ​not​​ even p​rovided for by law.
Given that the President derives his power to appoint
OICs in the ARMM regional government from law, it falls
under the classification of presidential appointments
covered by the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII
of the Constitution; the President's appointment power
thus rests on clear constitutional basis.
The petitioner’s assertion that RA 10153 grant of power
to appoint OICs is a violation of Article X(Sec 16), is an
overly restrictive interpretation of the President's
appointment power. There is no incompatibility between
the President's power of supervision over local
governments and autonomous regions, and the power
granted to the President, within the specific confines of
RA No. 10153, to appoint OICs.
Moreover, the implementation of the provisions of RA No.
10153 as an interim measure is comparable to the
interim measures traditionally practiced when, for
instance, the President appoints officials holding elective
offices upon the creation of new local government units.
The grant to the President of the power to appoint OICs
in place of the elective members of the Regional
Legislative Assembly is neither novel nor innovative. The
power granted to the President, via RA No. 10153, to
appoint members of the Regional Legislative Assembly is
comparable to the power granted by the Omnibus
Election Code to the President to fill any vacancy for any
cause in the Regional Legislative Assembly
 the next adjournment of
the Congress.

(Art X)
SECTION 16. The
President shall exercise
general supervision over
autonomous regions to
ensure that the laws are
faithfully executed.

(15) This case consists of 4 petitions that involve the 1. WoN the E.O. 2 1. No. Appointments are void.
Velicaria-Grafel alleged midnight appointees of former President appointments SECTION 1. Midnight 2. No. EO 2 is constitutional -
v. OP Macapagal-Arroyo prior the May 2010 elections. were valid Appointments Defined. No. Appointments are void.
According to Sec. 15 Article VII, the cutoff date for 2. WoN EO 2 — The following
TOPIC: revocation valid appointments of President Arroyo was on is appointments made by The following elements should always concur in the
of GMA March 10, 2010. The next day, March 11 was the unconstitution the former President and making of a valid (which should be understood as both
appointments start of the ban on midnight appointments. Section al other appointing complete and effective) appointment:
15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution recognizes authorities in (1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of
as an exception to the ban on midnight departments, agencies, the authority;
appointments only "temporary appointments to offices, and (2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence
executive positions when continued vacancies instrumentalities, of the transmittal (Not enough that appointment paper is
therein will prejudice public service or endanger including signed by the President, the appointment paper must
public safety." None of the petitioners claim that government-owned or bear the security marks (i.e., handwritten signature of the
their appointments fall under this exception. controlled corporations, President, bar code, etc.) and must be accompanied by a
The Appointees were as follows: shall be considered as transmittal letter from the MRO)
midnight appointments: (3) a vacant position ​at the time of​​ appointment; and
1. Atty. Cheloy E. Velicaria-Garafil (Atty. (4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of
Velicaria-Garafil), who was appointed State (a) ​Those made on or the appointment by the appointee who possesses all the
Solicitor II at the Office of the Solicitor General after March 11, 2010, qualifications and none of the disqualifications.
(OSG) including all (Acceptance could be in the form of taking oath into office
appointments bearing or assuming office)
dates prior to March
Date of Appointment Letter March 5, 2010
11, 2010 where the The concurrence of all these elements should always
appointee has apply, regardless of when the appointment is made,
Date of Transmittal Letter March 8, 2010 accepted, or taken his whether outside, just before, or during the appointment
oath, or assumed ban.
Date of Oath of Office March 22, public office on or after Petitioners have failed to show compliance with all four
2010 March 11, 2010​​, except elements of a valid appointment. Petitioners admit that
temporary appointments they took their oaths of office during the appointment
 in the executive ban.
Assumption of Office April 6, 2010
positions when They cannot prove with certainty that their appointment
continued vacancies will papers were transmitted before the appointment ban
Date of Receipt by May 13, 2010 prejudice public service took effect.
Malacañang Records Office or endanger public
safety as may be No. EO 2 is constitutional -
determined by the Aytona v. Castillo (Aytona) 42 is the basis for Section 15,
2. Atty. Dindo G. Venturanza (Atty. Venturanza),
appointing authority. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Aytona defined
who was appointed Prosecutor IV (City
"midnight or last minute" appointments for Philippine
Prosecutor) of Quezon City
(b) Those made prior to jurisprudence. President Carlos P. Garcia submitted on 29
March 11, 2010, but to December 1961, his last day in office, 350 appointments,
Date of Appointment Feb 23, 2010 take effect after said date including that of Dominador R. Aytona for Central Bank
Letter or appointments to Governor. President Diosdado P. Macapagal assumed
office that would be office on 30 December 1961, and issued on 31 December
Date of Transmittal March 9, 2010 vacant only after March 1961 Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing,
Letter 11, 2010. and cancelling all appointments made by President
Garcia after 13 December 1961 (President Macapagal's
proclamation date).
Date of Receipt by March 12, 2010
Malacañang Records Constitutional Commissioner Davide, Jr. referred to this
Office Court's ruling in Aytona and stated that his proposal
seeks to prevent a President, whose term is about to end,
Date of Oath of Office March 15, 2010 from preempting his successor by appointing his own
people to sensitive positions.
Assumption of Office March 15, 2010
The President exercises only one kind of appointing
power. There is no need to differentiate the exercise of
3. Irma A. Villanueva (Villanueva), who was the President's appointing power outside, just before, or
appointed Administrator for Visayas of the Board during the appointment ban. ​The Constitution allows
of Administrators of the Cooperative Development the President to exercise the power of appointment
Authority (CDA) during the period not covered by the appointment
ban, and disallows (subject to an exception) the
Date of Appointment Letter March 3, 2010 President from exercising the power of appointment
during the period covered by the appointment ban.
Date of Oath of Office April 13, 2010

Date of Receipt by May 4, 2010

Malacañang Records Office
 4. Francisca B. Rosquita (Rosquita), who was
appointed Commissioner of the National
Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

Date of Appointment Letter March 5, 2010

Date of Oath of Office March 18, 2010

Date of Receipt by May 13, 2010

Malacañang Records Office

5. Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong (Atty. Tamondong),

who was appointed member of the Board of
Directors of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
(SBMA) representing the private sector

Date of March 1, 2010

Appointme
nt Letter

Date of March 25, 2010 and July 6,2010

Oath of (2 oaths as an act of extra
Office caution)

On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2

recalling, withdrawing, and revoking
appointments issued by President
Macapagal-Arroyo which violated the
constitutional ban on midnight appointments.

Petitioners were terminated from their jobs or

their position was revoked sometime after the
issuance of EO 2, except for Villanueva whose
salary was withheld.

(16) The Congress commenced their regular session on WoN it was EO 292: Yes. The power to appoint is essentially executive in
Pimentel v. July 26 2004, and the Commission on constitutional - Sec. 16: ​Power of nature, and legislature may not interfere with the
Ermita Appointments (CoA) was constituted on Aug. 25 for Pres. Appointment.​ - The exercise of this power unless the Constitution expressly
2004. Arroyo to President shall exercise allows it to interfere. The scope of legislature’s
Topic: acting appoint the power to appoint interference in the exec’s power to appoint is limited to
secretaries On August 2004, Pres. Arroyo ​issued respondents such officials as the power to prescribe the qualifications to na appointive
appointments​ to respondents as ​acting as acting provided for in the office. Congress also cannot impose on the President’s
secretaries​ of their respective departments. The secretaries Constitution and laws. duty to appoint any particular person to an office.
Respondents took their oath of office and assumed without the - Sec. 17 (1) ​The
their duties as acting secretaries. Congress consent of the President may However, even if the CoA is composed of members of
adjourned on Sept. 22 2004, and the next day Pres. CoA while temporarily designate an Congress, the exercise of its powers is executive and not
Arroyo​ issued ad interim appointments​ to Congress is in officer already in the legislative. The CoA does not legislate when it exercises
respondents as ​secretaries​ of the departments to session. government service or its power to give or withhold consent to presidential
which they were previously appointed to in an any other competent appointments.
acting capacity. person to perform the
functions of an office in Despite petitioners contention that Pres. Arroyo
The Petitioners, composed of senators, filed the executive branch, shouldn’t have appointed acting secretaries because “in
questioning the constitutionality of Pres. Arroyo’s appointment to which is case of a vacancy in the Office of a Secretary, it is only an
appointment without the consent of CoA while vested in him by law, Undersecretary who can be designated as Acting
Congress is in session. when: (a) the officer Secretary”, basing the argument on EO 292, the Court
regularly appointed to ruled that the essence of an appointment in an acting
the office is unable to capacity is its temporary nature.
perform his duties by
reason of illness, In case of vacancies in an office occupied by an alter ego
absence or any other of the Pres, such as the office of the dept. Secretary, the
cause; or (b) there exists Pres. must necessarily appoint an alter ego as an acting
a vacancy secretary before the permanent appointee of her choice
- Sec. 17 (3): in no case can assume office.
shall a temporary
designation exceed one Petitioners also contended that “while Congress is in
year session, there can be no appointments, whether regular
or acting, to a vacant position in office needing
Consti Art. VII Sec. 16: confirmation by the CoA, without first obtaining its
consent.

Ad interim appointment Respondents pointed to Art VII Sec. 16 of the Consti and
- extended only during EO 292, with the former allowing the PRes. to make
Congress’ recess; acting appointments and the latter allowing the Pres. to
submitted to CoA for temporarily designate officers already in gov’t service/
confirmation or rejection any other competent person to perform the functions of
an office in the exec. Branch.
Acting appointment - can
be extended whenever Lastly, petitioners claim that the issuance of
there is a vacancy; not appointments in an acting capacity is susceptible to abuse
submitted to CoA is without merit, as E0 292 also provides that acting
(temporary filling of appointments cannot exceed one year.
important offices only)