Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes Executive Cases
Notes Executive Cases
"
[Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by executive
Facts power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain
1. February 1986 Marcos was deposed by the people power revolution powers by the President
2. Marcos, in his deathbed, signified his wish to return to the Ph to die 2. On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution
3. Pres. Aquino denied the request considering the dire consequences to imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President,
the nation at a time when the stability of the nation was threatened by: it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of
a. Manila Hotel coup "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said
b. Plot of Marcoses to return from Hawaii with mercenaries aboard to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers
c. Honasan coup so enumerated,
d. Communist insurgency 3. whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor
e. Secessionist movement in Mindanao judicial has to be executive
4. Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the
Marcoses Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the
1. They argue that they have a right to return to the Ph under the Bill of Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at
Rights: a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the
a. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to
due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national
protection of the laws interest.
b. Liberty of abode 5. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor
c. Right of travel inflexible
2. The president is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the 6. To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare
Marcoses since only a court may do so and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain
3. The president is also without power to impair their right to travel because individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to
no law has authorized her to do so protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the
President, as steward of the people
Respondents
7. This case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of
1. This is a political question beyond the cognizance of the court the peace
2. For the primary of the right of the state to national security over individual 8. The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to
rights exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to
a. Sec. 4 prime duty of the government is to serve and protect the leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence.
people The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of
b. Sec. 5. Maintenance of peace and order and the promotion of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems
general welfare are essential for the enhoymeant of the of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times
blessings of democracy when no foreign foe appears on the horizon.
3. There are international precedents to this decision i.e. Trujillo of the
Dominican Republic
Ruling: YES
MACALINTAL V COMELEC FERNANDO POE V ARROYO
Facts Facts
1. RA 9189 Oversees Absentee Voting Act of 2003 was enacted to ensure 1. In the 2004 elections, GMA was proclaimed winner of the presidential bid
equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the Ph abroad in the exercise garnering 12 million votes as opposed to Poe’s 11 million votes
of their right to vote 2. Refusing to concede defeat, Poe filed an election protest. However, he
2. Section 18.5 of RA 9189 provides that COMELEC is empowered to order died pending appeal.
the proclamation of winning candidates 3. His wife, Susan Roces, filed for a motion to intervene.
Macalintal Roces
1. The provision above-cited insofar as it affects the canvass of votes and 1. In the paramount interest of the Filipino people, there is an urgent need
proclamation of winning candidates for president and vice is for her to continue and substitute for her late husband to ascertain the
unconstitutional because it violates Sec. 4 Art. VII of the Constitution: genuine will of the electorate
a. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, 2. De Castro v. COMELEC: the death of a protestant does not constitute a
duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, ground for the dismissal of the contest nor the oust of the trial court of
shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the jurisdiction to decide the election contest.
the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the Arroyo
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of 1. Widow of the deceased is not the proper party to replace the deceased
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public protestant since she has not legal right to substitute for her husband
session, and the Congress, upon determination of the 2. Under ROC, only the registered candidates who obtained the 2 nd and 3rd
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided highest votes for the presidency may contest the election
by law, canvass the votes. 3. Vda. de De Mesa v. Mencias,10 we recognized substitution upon the
death of the protestee but denied substitution by the widow or heirs since
Respondents they are not the real parties in interest.
1. This provision must be harmonized with the constitution and mist be
taken to mean that COMRLRC can only proclaim the winning Senators
and members but not the president and vice ISSUE: W/N A SPOUSE MAY SUBSTITUTE FOR THEIR LATE SPOUSE WHO
FILED AN ELECTION PROTEST
Ruling
1. Further, we are also in agreement that the protestant, in assuming the
office of Senator and discharging her duties as such, which fact we can
take judicial notice of,38 has effectively abandoned or withdrawn her
protest, or abandoned her determination to protect and pursue the public
interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate
2. Santiago v. Ramos: In assuming the office of Senator then, the
Protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn this protest, or at the
very least, in the language of Moraleja, abandoned her "determination to
protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the
real choice of the electorate." Such abandonment or withdrawal operates
to render moot the instant protest.
3. In the case at bar, protestant's tenure in the Senate coincides with the
term of the Vice-Presidency 2004-2010, that is the subject of her protest.
In Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos, the protestant's tenure in the Senate
also coincided with the term of the Presidency she was vying for. Like
the protestant in the aforementioned case, the protestant in the case at
bar filed her certificate of candidacy for the Senate, campaigned for the
office, assumed office after election, and discharged the duties and
functions of said office. Thus, we agree concerning the applicability of
the Defensor-Santiago case as a precedent in the resolution of the
present protest, though they differ in that Defensor-Santiago's case
involves the Presidency while Legarda's protest concerns only the Vice-
Presidency.
SOLIVEN V. MAKASIAR ESTRADA V ARROYO | ESTRADA V DESIERTO
FACTS: In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised: (1) G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo
whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto
were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case
was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the March 2, 2001
President; and (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated Facts:
when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally
examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to Estrada was inaugurated as president of the Republic of the Philippines on June
determine probable cause; and (3) whether the President may file a suit 30, 1998 with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as his Vice President.
considering their privileged immunity. Petitioner Beltran contends that In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, a close friend of the
proceedings ensue by virtue of the President’s filing of her complaint-affidavit, President, alleged that he had personally given Estrada money as payoff from
she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, bringing her jueteng hidden in a bank account known as “Jose Velarde” – a grassroots-based
under the trial court’s jurisdiction. This would in an indirect way defeat her numbers game. Singson’s allegation also caused controversy across the nation,
privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would which culminated in the House of Representatives’ filing of an impeachment case
be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. against Estrada on November 13, 2000. House Speaker Manny Villar fast-
tracked the impeachment complaint. The impeachment suit was brought to the
Senate and an impeachment court was formed, with Chief Justice Hilario Davide,
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, UNDER Jr. as presiding officer. Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”.
THE CONSTITUTION, MAY INITIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS THROUGH FILING OF A COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January 18, a crowd
continued to grow at EDSA, bolstered by students from private schools and left-
wing organizations. Activists from the group Bayan and Akbayan as well as
Ruling: YES lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations joined
in the thousands of protesters.
1. While the president is immune from suit, she may not be prevented from
instituting suit. On January 19, The Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the
2. This privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of Philippines also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA
the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any Shrine.
other person in the President’s behalf. At 2:00pm, Estrada appeared on television for the first time since the beginning
3. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive is solely the of the protests and maintains that he will not resign. He said that he wanted the
President’s prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and impeachment trial to continue, stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him
imposed by any other person (And there is nothing in our laws that would from office.
prevent the President from waiving the privilege).
At 6:15pm, Estrada again appeared on television, calling for a snap presidential
election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on May
14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this election.
On January 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was
vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively resigned his post”. Noon of the same
day, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd
at EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines.
At 2:00 pm, Estrada released a letter saying he had “strong and serious doubts
about the legality and constitutionality of her proclamation as president”,but
saying he would give up his office to avoid being an obstacle to healing the nation.
Estrada and his family later left Malacañang Palace.
A heap of cases then succeeded Estrada’s leaving the palace, which he
countered by filing a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. It sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from “conducting any President, cannot claim executive immunity for his alleged criminal acts
further proceedings in cases filed against him not until his term as president ends. committed while a sitting President. From the deliberations, the intent of the
He also prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent framers is clear that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only
President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the with his tenure(the term during which the incumbent actually holds office) and not
duties of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be his term (time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and
holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity pursuant to the fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another).
provisions of the Constitution.”
Petitioner Estrada makes two submissions: first, the cases filed against him
before the respondent Ombudsman should be prohibited because he has not
been convicted in the impeachment proceedings against him; and second, he
enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit, whether criminal or civil.
ISSUE:
1.) WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER ESTRADA WAS A PRESIDENT-ON-
LEAVE OR DID HE TRULY RESIGN.
2.) WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER MAY INVOKE IMMUNITY FROM
SUITS.
Ruling:
PP 1017 states in part: "to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees x x
x promulgated by me personally or upon my direction."
ISSUE:
1.) WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 1017 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESIDENT’S POWERS TO
ISSUE DECREES?
Ruling: YES
Issue:
1) WHETHER OR NOT EO 284 IS VALID FOR ALLOWING CABINET
MEMBERS, UNDERSECS, ASST. SECS, AND OTHER APPOINTIVE
OFFICIALS TO HOLD OTHER POSITIONS IN GOVT.
Ruling: NO
1) The constitution only allows not more than 2 other positions that they
may hold provided it is allowed by law or their primary function.
2) The EO allows them to hold multiple offices
3) Sec. 13 states that such officials shall not hold any other office during
their tenure unless otherwise provided for in the constitution.
4) Thus, if the constitution does not provide for an exception to this rule, this
provision cannot be overruled by an executive order providing for an
expansion of the number of offices that such officials may hold.
DE CASTRO V JBC, G.R. No. 191002. March 17, 2010 Section 14, Section 15 and Section 16 refers only to the appointments made in
the Executive Department.
Facts:
This is a consolidated case which assails the constitutionality of the action of EXPOUNDED RULING:
former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo by appointing a Chief Justice 7 days
Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a
after the Presidential election in 2010.
vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary.
After the compulsory retirement of former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the
Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in conflict.
position of Chief Justice was left vacant. Section 4 (1), in relation to Section 9,
Article VIII of the Constitution states that, "vacancy shall be filled within ninety The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department), provides: Section 15.
days from occurrence thereof," from a, "List of nominees prepared by the Judicial Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end
Bar Council for every vacancy" furthermore, Section 15, Article VII was also taken of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except
into consideration which prohibits the President or the Acting President from temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
making appointments within two (2) months immediately before the next therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department), states: Section 4. (1).
prejudice public service or endanger public safety. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven
The JBC agreed that the vacant position must be filled and there were five (5) Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence
candidates for the position from the most senior of the Associates of the court thereof.
and one of them is Associate Justice Reynato C. Corona who was chosen by the
President and was appointed for the position of Chief Justice. Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15,
Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the incumbent President may explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the
appoint the next Chief Justice since the Constitution do not apply to the Supreme provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made
Court. If the framers of the Constitution intended the prohibition to apply in the explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment
Supreme Court then it should have expressly stated it in the Constitution. of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1),
Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition
ISSUE:
against the President or Acting President making appointments within two
WHETHER OR NOT the President can appoint the successor of the Chief months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s
Justice.. or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15,
Article VII to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could have
RULING: explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the meticulous ordering of the
provisions. They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made
Yes, the President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice as the prohibitions
explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment
in the Constitution.
of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1),
If the framers of the Constitution intends that the prohibition shall apply to the Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition
appointment of Chief Justice, then they should have expressly stated it in the against the President or Acting President making appointments within two
Constitution under Section 15 (THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT), Article VII and months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s
Section 4 (1), Article VIII (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT). or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in
that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14
and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, December 17, 1987.
renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department.
This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be FACTS:
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered Respondent Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau
together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the of Cutoms by then President (Corazon) Aquino. The said appointment made by
whole enactment. It is absurd to assume that the framers deliberately situated the President is being questioned by petitioner Ulpiano Sarmiento III and Juanito
Section 15 between Section 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to Arcilla who are both taxpayers, members of the bar, and both Constitutional law
cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was their intention in respect professors, stating that the said appointment is not valid since the appointment
of appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily was not submitted to the Commission On Appointment (COA) for approval. Under
and surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most likely within Section the Constitution, the appointments made for the "Heads of Bureau" requires the
4 (1) thereof. confirmation from COA.
ISSUE:
Yes. The President acted within her constitutional authority and power in
appointing Salvador Mison, without submitting his nomination to the CoA for
confirmation. He is thus entitled to exercise the full authority and functions of the
office and to receive all the salaries and emoluments pertaining thereto.
Under Sec 16 Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4 groups of officers
whom the President shall appoint:
2nd, all other Government officers whose appointments are not otherwise
provided by law;
3rd those whom the President may be authorized by the law to appoint;
4th, low-ranking officers whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in
the President alone.
First group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if
the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the President
appoints.
2nd, 3rd and 4th group of officers are the present bone of contention. By following
the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction that an express
enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it would follow that only
those appointments to positions expressly stated in the first group require the
consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.
The first group are the only public officers appointed by the president which
requires the confirmation of COA. The position of Mison does not belong to the
first group, hence, his appointment need not be confirmed by the COA.