You are on page 1of 17

CARMEN PLANAS, petitioner, vs. JOSE GIL, Commissioner of Civil Service, 1. Yes.

In the present case, the President is not a party to the proceeding. The
Facts: Commissioner of Civil Service is the party respondent and the theory is advanced by
Petitioner , a member of the municipal board of the City of Manila, criticized the acts the Government that because an investigation undertaken by him is directed by
of certain government officials in connection with the general election for authority of the President of the Philippines, this court has no jurisdiction over the
Assemblymen held on November 8, 1938 in one of the local dailies. The statement present proceedings instituted by the petitioner, Carmen Planas. The argument is
as published in the issue of La Vanguardia of November 17, 1938, included the farfetched. A mere plea that a subordinate officer of the government is
following statements: acting under orders from the Chief Executive may be an important
averment, but is neither decisive nor conclusive upon this court. Like the
“… In Manila, the opposition should have won the November 8 elections, but lost dignity of his high office, the relative immunity of the Chief Executive from
instead because of a disastrous division due to people who commercialized judicial interference is not in the nature of a sovereign passport for all the
their candidacies. subordinate officials and employees of the Executive Department to the
"The Constitution prohibits the reelection of the President precisely so that extent that at the mere invocation of the authority that it purports the
the President may devote all his time to the administration of public affairs jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the validity or legality of an
for the welfare of the people, but the President was the first to play executive order is necessarily abated or suspended.
politics. Publicly expressing his preference for candidates of his liking; and with the
President all other officials of the government also moved, taking part in electoral Not infrequently, "the writ is granted, where it is necessary for the orderly
campaigns. administration of justice, or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law
"With the government machinery feverishly functioning to flatten the in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of actions."
opposition and prevent candidates supported by the people from going to (Dimayuga and Fajardo vs. Fernandez [1922]) This court, therefore, has
the National Assembly, and with frauds and violations of all rules of the civil jurisdiction over the instant proceedings and will accordingly proceed to determine
service to push to victory the candidates of the Nacionalista Party and the the merits of the present controversy.
administration, all constructive opposition in the country is useless ...
"… It is reasonable to believe that the President is from this moment paving 2. Yes.
the way for his reelection. It is to be feared that the new National Assembly will
change this wise provision of our Constitution to permit the reelection of President It is not denied that the President did authorize the issuance of the order, but it is
Manuel L. Quezon." contended "that the said investigation with a view to petitioner's suspension or
removal is against Article VII, sec. 11 (1) of the Constitution of the Philippines and
The day following the publication of the foregoing statement, the petitioner received is not warranted by any statutory provision." (Par. XV [b], amended petition.) It,
a letter, where she is informed that she needs to appear before the Commisioner of therefore, becomes necessary to inquire into the constitutional and legal authority
Civil Service to prove her statements otherwise she may be suspended or removed of the President to order the investigation which has given rise to the present
from office. controversy.

At the appointed time, the petitioner, accompanied by her counsel, appeared at the A perusal of our Constitution will show that extensive authority over the public
office of the respondent and delivered to him a letter, Annex B, in which she voiced service is granted the President of the Philippines. Article VII of the
objection to the authority of the respondent to conduct the investigation. The Constitution begins in its section 1 with the declaration that "The Executive
respondent Commissioner did not desist from proceeding with the investigation, but power shall be vested in a President of the Philippines." All executive
announced before adjourning the hearing of November 22nd that he would decide authority is thus vested in him, and upon him devolves the constitutional
the question raised as to his jurisdiction on November 26, 1938. duty of seeing that the laws are "faithfully executed." (Art. VIII, sec. 11,
subsec. 1, last clause.) In the fulfillment of this duty which he cannot
It was at this state of the investigation that the petitioner filed in this court her evade, he is granted specific and express powers and functions. (Art. VII,
original petition for prohibition of November 25, 1938, in which she at the same sec. 11.) In addition to these specific and express powers and functions, he
time prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the may also exercise those necessarily implied and included in them. (Myers vs.
respondent commisioner from continuing with the investigation. United States [1926]) The National Assembly may not enact laws which either
expressly or impliedly diminish the authority conferred upon the President of the
Issues: Constitution. (Cf. Concepcion vs. Paredes [1921]) The Constitution provides that
1. WON the courts have jurisdiction over this case the President "shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus,
2. WON the president has the power to order the investigation and offices" (Art. VII, sec. 11 [1], first clause) and shall "exercise general
3. WON the investigation is in accordance with the law supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law" (Ibid,
second clause). This power of control and supervision is an important
Ratio/Holding: The petition is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. constitutional grant. The President in the exercise of the executive power
under the Constitution may act through the heads of the executive 3. Yes.
The interest of the public service requires that these charges be investigated, so
Independently of any statutory provision authorizing the President to conduct an that, if found to be true, appropriate action may be taken against the parties alleged
investigation of the nature involved in this proceeding, and in view of the nature and to have been guilty of illegal acts, and if found untrue and made without justifiable
character of the executive authority with which the President of the Philippines is motives, the party making them may be proceeded against in accordance with
invested, the constitutional grant to him of power to exercise general section 2440, in connection, with section, 2078, of the Revised Administrative
supervision over all local governments and to take care that the laws be Code." Assuming that this is not one of the grounds provided by law for which the
faithfully executed must be construed to authorize him to order an petitioner may be investigated administratively (sec. 2078, Rev. Adm. Code), there
investigation of the act or conduct, of the petitioner herein. Supervision is is weight in the argument that the investigation would still be in order if for no
not a meaningless thing. It is an active power. It is certainly not without other purpose than to cause a full and honest disclosure of all the facts so
limitation, but it at least implies authority to inquire into facts and that, if found proper and justified, appropriate action may be taken against
conditions in order to render the power real and effective. If supervision is to the parties alleged to have been guilty of the illegal acts charged. The
be conscientious and rational, and not automatic and brutal, it must be founded enforcement of the law and the maintenance of peace and order are primarily an
upon a knowledge of actual facts and conditions disclosed after careful study and executive obligation. The declaration that the President should "take care
investigation. that the laws be faithfully executed" is more an imposition of an obligation
than a conferment of power. His oath requires him to "faithfully and
Viewed from the totality of powers conferred upon the Chief Executive by conscientiously fulfill" his duties as President, "preserve and defend" the
our Constitution, we should be reluctant to yield to the proposition that the Constitution and "execute" the law. This duty of the Executive to see that
President of the Philippines who is endowed with broad and extraordinary the laws be faithfully executed is not limited to the enforcement of
powers by our Constitution, and who is expected to govern with a firm and legislative acts or the express terms of the Constitution but also includes
steady hand without vexatious or embarrassing interference and much less the due enforcement of rights, duties, obligations, prerogatives and
dictation from any source, is yet devoid of the power to order the immunities growing out of the Constitution itself and of the protection
investigation of the petitioner in this case. We should avoid that result. implied by the nature of the government under the Constitution.
(Cunningham vs. Neagle)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention show that the grant of the
supervisory authority to Chief Executive in this regard was in the nature of a We are vigilantly alive to the necessity of maintaining and protecting the
compromise resulting from the conflict of views in that body, mainly between the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press, no less than
historical view which recognizes the right of local self-government (People ex rel. Le the right of assembly and petition which, according to Stimson (The
Roy vs. Hurlbut [1871]) and the legal theory which sanctions the possession by the American Constitution As It Protects Private Rights, 152), is its origin
state of absolute control over local governments (Booten vs. Pinson, [1915]). The rather than its derivation. In the present case, however, the petitioner is not
result was the recognition of the power of supervision and all its denied the right, nor is she being investigated because she had exercised that right.
implications and the rejection of what otherwise would be an imperium in, She has a perfect right to criticize the Government, its administration, its policies
imperio to the detriment of a strong national government. and officials, but she may not, on the plea of freedom of speech and of the press,
impute violations of law and the commission of frauds and thereafter fold her arms
Apart from the constitutional aspect, we find that section 64 of the and decline to face an investigation conducted to elicit the truth or falsity of the
Administrative Code of 1917 provides as follows: charges formulated by her. Otherwise, the guarantee which, in the language of
Wendell Phillips, is "at once the instrument, and the guarantee, and the bright
"In addition to his general supervisory authority, the Governor-General consummate flower of all liberty" would degenerate into an unbridled license, and
(President) shall have such specific powers and duties as are expressly render the Government powerless to act.
conferred or imposed on him by law and also, in particular, the powers and
duties set forth in this chapter. VILLENA VS. SECRETARY
"Among such special powers and duties shall be:
* * * * * * * Ang-Angco v. Castillo
"(c) To order, when in his opinion the good of the public service so
requires, an investigation of any action or the conduct of any person in the Facts: Isidro Ang-Angco is the Collector of Customs. The Commissioner of
Government service, and in connection therewith to designate the official, Customs filed an administrative complaint against him for releasing 1,188 units of
committee, or person by whom such investigation shall be conducted." Pepsi-cola concentrate without authorization. President Ramon Magsaysay, on the
This provision of the law, in existence before the taking effect of the strength of this complaint, created an investigating committee to investigate Ang-
Constitution, still subsists. It is not inconsistent with the Constitution and Angco. As a result, Ang-Angco was suspended from his office on December 1956.
has not been abrogated or repealed by the National Assembly. (See sec. 2, On April 1, 1957, Collector Ang-Angco was reinstated by Finance Secretary
Art. XV, Constitution.) Hernandez, but the investigation decision was still pending. President Magsaysay
died and it was after three years, that Executive Secretary Natalio Castillo rendered
a decision on the pending administrative case. He found Ang-Angco guilty and PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION vs. COMELEC
considered him resigned from the date of notice. Ang-Angco filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied. After exhausting all administrative remedies, he Facts:
filed this petition. Pres. Marcos’ term was supposed to end on June 30, 1987. However, he
submitted a letter of conditional resignation claiming that he would vacate his
Issues: WON the President has the power to take direct action against petitioner in position effective only when election’s held & after winner’s proclaimed &
spite of the provisions in the Civil Service Act of 1959 qualified as Pres by taking his oath of office 10 days after his proclamation. He
claims that he is calling for the new elections to seek a new mandate to assess
Held: No. The action taken by Respondent Executive Secretary, even with the his policies & programs as demanded by the opposition. He further stressed
authority of the President, in taking direct action on the administrative case of that his term will be shortened but in the name of public accountability he
petitioner , without submitting the same to the Commissioner of Civil Service, is believes that the final settlement of these issues can only be done thru a
contrary to law and should be set aside. presidential election.
B.P. Blg. 883: enacted by the Batasang Pambansa calling for special national
1. Under sec. 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of Civil elections on Feb. 7, 1986 for Pres & VP.
Service who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to decide administrative Different sectors were against the special elections. Among the contentions are:
cases of all officers and employees in the classified service. The decision may be 1. Such is unconstitutional because there was no vacancy in the presidency
appealed to the Civil Service Board (Sec. 18 RA 2260), and not the President as was
thus there’s no need to call for a special election. This is pursuant to Art.
allowed before under Commonwealth Act 598. The said act was expressly repealed
VII, Sec. 9 of the Consti 1 w/c requires an actual vacancy before an special
by the Civil Service Act of 1959, therefore the petitioner was deprived of the
election can be called and in such cases, the Speaker of the House will be
procedure laid down in the law and has lost his right to due process.
the Acting Pres until a new one has been elected.
2. Unconstitutional because it allows the Pres to continue holding office after
2. However, under sec. 16(i), the power to remove, separate and suspend officers
calling of the special election. Cutting his term short is valid but he should
and employees is qualified by the saving clause “Except as otherwise provided by
actually vacate the office.
law”. Is there any other law that allows the President to remove officers and
After some time, many of the petitions were w/drawn expressly or abandoned
employees in the classified civil service?
impliedly. Political parties have chosen to participate in the elections by fielding
their own candidates. M.P. Arturo Tolentino who was one of those opposed to
No. The only other law that gives the President the right to remove officials is Sec.
the elections (claiming that Marcos must first resign from office in order for the
64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code. The president has the power to remove
constitutional mandate to go into effect & the Speaker to assume post of Acting
officials from office “conformably to law”. This means that the President does not
Pres.) set aside his objections & went on to become Marcos’ running mate. The
have blanket authority to remove any officer, but is still subject to laws that may be
opposition united & chose its standard bearers: Cory Aquino for Pres & Doy
enacted by the legislature.
Laurel for VP. They have decided to take the Pres at his own terms & conditions
rather than file any more petition or suit to oppose such.
3. Respondents cite President’s power to control all officials and employees in the
Current petition involves parties who still oppose the special national elections
executive department to override the provisions in the Civil Service Act. (Sec. 10(1)
assailing its constitutionality.
Art. VII, Constitution)
The power of the President to “control” all officers and employees in the Executive
Held: The Supreme Court voted 7 to dismiss petitions & deny prayer for issuance of
Department only means that he has the power to “alter, or modify, or nullify, or set
injunction restraining respondents from holding election and 5 declared BP 883
aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties, and to
unconstitutional & voted to grant the injunction. Since there are less than the
substitute the President’s judgment over his.” This merely applies to the acts of the
required 10 votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional, petitions are considered
employee or official, and not to the agent of the act. President only has power to set
dismissed & writs prayed for denied. Justices filed separate opinions since only a
aside action of the official, not remove him from office.
resolution was issued.
4. The purpose of the Civil Service System is to give stability of tenure to those who
belong in the classified service. In Sec. 4 Art. XII of the Constitution, it states that
“No officer of employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except,
for cause as provided by law”. This section must be harmonized with Sec.10(1) Art.
VII, which gives the President the power to control all officials and employees of the Sec. 9. In cases of permanently disability, death, removal fr. Office/resignation of the Pres., the
Executive Department. The Court held that the President may remove, investigate VP shall become Pres to serve the unexpired term. The BP shall by law provide for the case of
or suspend employees, if they are presidential appointees, or they do not belong to permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of both the Pres & VP, declaring
the classified service. This is because with the power to appoint comes the power to what officer shall then become Pres or the manner in w/c one shall be selected. In case a
vacancy in the Office of the Pres occurs before the 1987 Pres’l election, the Speaker of the BP
shall act as Pres until a Pres and a VP or either of them shall have been elected & shall have
qualified. Their term of office shall commence at noon of the 10 th day following proclamation &
shall end at noon on the 30th day of June of the 6th year thereafter.
Teehankee, concurring Gutierrez, dissenting
Issue has veered from a justiciable to a political one & can only be decided by Government acts ought to conform to the Consti. A special election is only
the people in their sovereign capacity in a fair, clean & honest election. necessary when a vacancy is created by death, permanent disability, removal
Labor Minister Blas Ople: people’s minds have been set to expect the holding of from office or resignation. Vacancy must be real & actual and a resignation
the elections. Court should not stand in the way. Court has to take judicial must be real & irrevocable. Currently, there is no vacancy and so, no valid
notice that the elections are on and canceling it might aggravate crisis & Pres appointment/reelection may be effected. Consti provision should be construed
may find it difficult to govern effectively. This issue threatens national survival. in its ordinary meaning.
Senator Pelaez: This is a giant step in the people’s struggle for the restoration Special elections can’t be premised on the accountability provisions of Art. XIII
of freedom & democracy shattered by declaration of martial law. The opposition of the Consti. Snap elections to make executive accountable to the people are
has become united & the 2-party has been restored. We can’t throw away the for parliamentary systems. Not applicable here since we have a presidential
substantial gains by postponing the elections. The issue has been decided by system. Although 1973 Consti envisioned a parliamentary set-up where the
the political will of the people. The Pres admitted that he needs a new mandate National Assembly may w/draw its confidence from the PM by electing a
& that he has lost his capacity to govern. People must be given a chance to successor by majority vote of all its members, the Consti was amended even
decide to keep Marcos or to elect a new Pres. before the parliamentary gov’t was formed.
Bulletin Today Columnist: People have been titillated by the prospect of change.
Considering current political situation w/ the economic crisis & communist-led De la Fuente, dissenting
insurgency, any delay will only exacerbate the pol situation (Cayetano). SC Unconstitutional for it contravenes Art. VII, Sec. 9 of the Consti. It ignores the
should not contribute to the possible destabilization of the gov’t. process set out by the Consti in selecting a successor in case of vacancy.
Former CJ Fernando & Former Sen. Padilla: Court should defer exercise of Resignation must result in a permanent vacancy & not prospective or inchoate
people’s pub right to vote & to express their judgment. or contingent.
This may be RP democracy’s last chance. Different sectors support the idea. Disagrees w/those who believe the statute is unconstitutional but still allows its
implementation taking into account the supervening events & people’s
Plana, concurring overwhelming desire to hold election.
Consti does not prohibit Pres from tendering a resignation that is not immediately Consti & election laws allow Pres/elective official to submit himself to reelection
effective thus, resignation in futuro is allowed. BP can’t wait for actual vacancy to same office w/o vacating it during regular elections & not on a special
before it can enact the necessary legislation. Also, there’s a strong presumption that election.
law’s constitutional. To doubt is to sustain. Presumption’s strengthened by fact that If Pres wants to ask for the people’s vote of confidence, most appropriate
it’s a product of the executive & legislative departments. vehicle would be thru a referendum where a negative vote would bring about a
Escolin, concurring
Petitioners failed to prove that BP 883 contravenes any applicable constitutional Alampay, dissenting
provision. Issue is political in character. Pres sought the passage of the legislation & Court should detach itself from all the supervening events that are taking place
BP authorized the elections. Response of the people has been overwhelming & they especially since it goes against the Consti. Consti should be respected & followed.
have decided that only an election during this crucial time can deliver the country BP 883 doesn’t meet specific condition that there should first be an actual & existing
from subversive forces as well as economic problems plaguing the country. vacancy before a special election can be held.

Relova, concurring Patajo, dissenting
Requisites of a complete & operative resignation from public office: 1)intention Batasan can only call for an election before the expiration of Pres’ term in 1987
to relinquish; 2) act of relinquishment; 3)implied/express intention to upon the occurrence of contingencies provided for in Sec. 9, Art. VII. By
surrender, renounce & relinquish office; 4) acceptance by competent & lawful enacting BP 883, BP shortened Pres’ term w/o going thru process of amending
authority. (Gamboa vs. CA) the Consti since it is acting in its legislative pow & not as a constituent body.
Acceptance is necessary and the BP by enacting BP 883, accepted Marcos’ There is no vacancy considering that the Pres will continue to hold office until a
resignation. Legislative act suffices because of the plenary pow vested in the BP winning candidate assumes office. IF a vacancy did exist, it should be the
considering that Consti framers were not prepared for such scenario (CJ Speaker who will act as Pres. The provision contemplates an actual vacancy &
Fernando). What is not prohibited by the Consti can be provided for by the BP. not one in futuro.
(Sol Gen) The calling of an election is essentially legislative in nature (Ututalum Shortening of term of office can’t be justified by Pres agreeing to vacate his
vs COMELEC). office. He can only shorten his term of office by UNCONDITIONALLY resigning
Parties have fielded their candidates. Time, effort & money have been spent. therefrom before its expiration in order that vacancy is created & Speaker shall
People are expecting the elections & thus they can’t be deprived of their rt to act as Pres. His letter did not create the vacancy envisioned by Art. VII, Sec. 9.
suffrage. Legislative & executive bodies have spoken. Although pow to call election is a legislative pow, it can’t be exercised when it
would amend an express provision of the Consti more specifically Art. VII, Sec.
5 fixing term of the Pres to 6 yrs. Pow to define the term is not legislative but (a) when directly provided for in the Consti as in the case of the Sec. of Justice
constituent. BP 883 has in effect, amended the Consti.
who is made an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under
Accountability of pub officers can’t be invoked. Impeachment is the recourse for Sec. 8(1), Art. VIII; or
holding pub officials accountable & not special elections. (b) if allowed by law; or
Constitutions don’t’ change w/varying tides of pub opinion & desire. They can’t (c) if allowed by the primary functions of their respective positions
be construed as if they were public enemies standing in the way of progress  On the basis of this Opinion, Pres. Aquino promulgated E.O. No. 284.
(Bay City vs. State Treasurer).  Petitioners (CLU and Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. and Crispin
Reyes) seek:
Unconstitutionality of the Snap Poll (article by Fernando & Pelaez?) o Declaration of unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 284 on the grounds that it
Consti mandates precise procedure for presidential succession. Had it wanted violates Sec. 13, Art. VII, Consti as the executive order, in effect, allows
the BP to legislate such, it should have expressly said so. But because it members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to
provided us w/a very detailed process, the Batasan must keep out. Batasan can hold other gov’t offices or positions in addition to their primary positions,
supplement where it’s authorized to do so but it can’t touch what’s already albeit subject to the limitations that they shall hold not more than 2 positions
prescribed by Consti. & that at least 1/3 of the members of the boards of gov’t-owned or controlled
Consti demands an actual & permanent vacancy, not a paper vacancy. BP has corps should either be a secretary, or undersecretary, or assistant secretary
no authority to contrive another cause like a post-dated resignation to effect a and thus adds exceptions to Sec. 13 other than those provided in the
succession. Constitution; and
Consti specifically provides that on the 3rd after the occurrence of a vacancy at o that public respondents cease and desist from holding, in addition to their
10 am, Batasan shall convene w/o need of a call & w/in 7 days enact a law primary positions, dual or multiple positions other than those authorized by
calling a special election to elect a Pres & VP not earlier that 45 nor later than the Constitution and from receiving any kind of emolument appurtenant to
60 days from time of such call. This is a very specific provision contrary to their questioned positions, and compelling public respondents to return,
traditional notions of consti-making w/c provides that consti must be general reimburse or refund any and all amounts or benefits that they may have
allowing legislature to provide details. In cases where Consti itself supplies the received from such positions
details, legislature must not meddle w/it.  Petitioners argue: Only exceptions against holding any other office or
NO doubt that Consti’s intent means that special presidential election during employment in Gov’t are those provided in the Constitution, namely:
Marcos’ term must take place & must be carried out strictly in accordance (1) Vice-President may be appointed as a Cabinet Member under Sec. 3(2), Art.
w/circumstances & procedures specifically laid out by Consti. VII; and
BP 883 defies Consti in following instances:
1. Called for a snap election when there’s no actual vacancy. Resignation (2) Sec of Justice is ex-officio mem of Judicial & Bar Council by virtue of Sec.
letter did not create a vacancy. 8(1), Art. VIII.
2. Instead of installing Speaker from the moment of vacancy, law allowed  Further, the exception to the prohibition in Sec. 7(2), Art. I-XB applies to officers
Marcos to usurp speaker’s role & continue as Pres. and employees of the Civil Service in general & that said exceptions do not
apply and cannot be extended to Sec. 13, Art. VII which applies specifically to
3. Consti provision w/c provides that Batasan must meet on the 3 rd day after
the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or
vacancy. Law does not provide for such. assistants.
Suggested remedies:  Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the phrase "unless
1. referendum: in accordance w/ Marcos’ claim that he wants to show that otherwise provided in the Constitution" in Sec.13, Art.VII refers to the
people were still w/him. Affirmative vote would show that people still had exceptions provided under Sec.7(2), Art. I-XB insofar as the appointive officials
confidence in Pres whereas a negative vote would create the vacancy mentioned therein are concerned.
required by Consti.
2. Amend the consti to allow holding of special election in the manner BP 883 Issue: WON prohibition in Sec. 13, Art. VII insofar as Cabinet members,
provides. their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions
made for appointive officials in general under Sec. 7(2), Art. I-XB
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY  NO. Sec. 7(2), Art. I-XB: "Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
194 SCRA 317 (1991) functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
Facts: thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation or their
 July 23, 1987: then Sec. of Justice Ordoñez, construing Sec. 13, Art. VII in subsidiaries."
relation to Sec. 7(2), Art. IX-B, rendered an opinion declaring that Cabinet  The foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention underlying
members, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries may hold other public the provision under consideration. Because the practice of designating Cabinet
office, including membership in the boards of government corporations: members and their assistants as members of governing bodies or boards, which
was prevalent during the martial law era, led to abuses, the 1987 Constitution
intended to provide for a remedy or a correction of the evils that flowed from  During the floor deliberations, Commissioner Ople asked about Commissioner
holding multiple governmental offices & employment Monsod’s proposal to add to Sec. 7 the exception "unless required by the
 It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter functions of his position" with express reference to certain high-ranking
prohibition on the President and his official family in so far as holding appointive public officials like members of the Cabinet. Monsod pointed out that
other offices or employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned as there are instances when although not required by current law, membership of
shown by the fact that although Sec. 7, Art. I-XB already contains a prohibition certain high-ranking executive officials in other offices and corporations is
against holding multiple offices subsuming both elective and appointive public necessary by reason of said officials' primary functions.
officials, the Con-Com still formulated another provision (Sec. 13, Art. VII) with  While this exchange may be used as authority for saying that additional
a prohibition specifically for the Pres, VP, Cabinet mems, their deputies and functions and duties flowing from the primary functions of the official may be
assistants, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself. imposed upon him without offending the constitutional prohibition under
 Furthermore, the prohibition imposed on the President and his official family is consideration, it cannot, however, be taken as authority for saying that this
all-embracing and covers both public and private office or employment as shown exception is by virtue of Sec. 7(2) of Art. I-XB. What was being discussed then
by the facts the other provisions of the Constitution (Sec. 13, Art. VI; Sec. 5(4), were general principles which would serve as constitutional guidelines in the
Art. XVI; Sec. 7(2), Art. IX-B) on the disqualifications of certain public officials absence of specific constitutional provisions on the matter. What was primarily
or employees from holding other offices or employment pertains to an office or at issue and approved on that occasion was the adoption of the qualified and
employment in the government and government-owned or controlled delimited phrase "primary functions" as the basis of an exception to the general
corporations or their subsidiaries while the disqualification in Sec. 13, Art. VII is rule covering all appointive public officials. That this exception would apply also
absolute was not qualified by the phrase "in the Government." to the President and his official family is by reason of the legal principles
 Commissioner Foz: "We actually have to be stricter with the President and the governing additional functions and duties of public officials rather than by virtue
members of the Cabinet because they exercise more powers and, therefore, of Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B.
more cheeks and restraints on them are called for because there is more  In light of the construction given to Sec. 13, Art. VII in relation to Sec. 7(2),
possibility of abuse in their case." Art. IX-B, E.O. No. 284 is unconstitutional as it actually allows them to hold
 From the foregoing, it would seem that Sec. 7, Art. I-XB is meant to lay down multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate
the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and of Sec. 13, Art. VII, Constitution, prohibiting them from doing so, unless
employees, while Sec. 13, Art. VII is meant to be the exception applicable otherwise provided in the Constitution itself. However, ex-officio posts held by
only to the President, the Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, their the executive official concerned without additional compensation as provided by
deputies and assistants. law and as required by the primary functions of his office do not fall under the
 THEREFORE: to interpret the qualifying phrase "unless otherwise provided in definition of "any other office" within the contemplation of the constitutional
this Constitution" the way the respondents did would render nugatory and prohibition.
meaningless the manifest intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution  Being head of an executive department is no mean job. It is more than a full-
to impose a stricter prohibition on those particular public officials with respect to time job, requiring full attention, specialized knowledge, skills and expertise.
holding other offices or employment in the government during their tenure.
 MOREOVER, respondents' reading of the provisions in question would render Held: Petitions GRANTED, E.O. No. 284 declared null and void and set aside.
certain parts of the Constitution inoperative, such as Sec. 3, Art. VII authorizing
the VP to become a Cabinet member, and to act as President w/o relinquishing MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS (Sept. 15, 1989)
the Vice-Presidency where the President shall not nave been chosen or fails to Petitioners: Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Irene Araneta,
qualify. Imee Manotoc, Tomas Manotoc, Gregorio Araneta, Pacifico Marcos, Nicanor Yñiguez
 The prohibition in Sec. 13 must not, however, be construed as applying to posts & PHILCONSA
occupied by the Executive officials specified therein w/o additional compensation
in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary Respondents: Hon. Raul Manglapus (DFA Sec.), Catalino Macaraig (Exec. Sec.),
functions of said officials' office because these posts do no comprise "any other Sedfrey Ordoñez (DOJ Sec.), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Immigration
office" within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are properly Commissioner), Fidel Ramos (DND Sec.), Renato de Villa (Chief of Staff)
an imposition of additional duties and functions on said officials. The ex-officio
position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it Substantive Facts:
follows that the official concerned has no right to receive additional Feb. 1986 – Marcos was deposed from presidency by means of the People
compensation for his services in the said position as these services are already Power. He was forced into exile in Hawaii.
paid for and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office. After 3 years, Marcos, now dying, prays that he and his family be allowed to
Therefore, the prohibition in Sec. 13 need not apply. return to the country.
 Ex-officio: from office or by virtue of office; an authority derived from official Aquino – barred Marcoses from returning due to possible threats & following
character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but supervening events:
rather annexed to the official position; act done in an official character, or as a 1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders
consequence of office, and without any other appointment or authority than that 2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
conferred by the office.
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a 1. NO.
Lebanese arms dealer a. International laws cited distinguish right to freedom of mov’t & residence
*proof that they can stir trouble from afar & fanaticism & blind loyalty of from rt. To leave any country including his own & to return to his country.
followers b. Right to return to one’s country is not vested in the constitution but it’s
4. Honasan’s failed coup only incorporated by virtue of the constitution’s adoption of international
5. Communist insurgency movements laws as part of the laws of the land (Art II, Sec. 2)
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao (setting up own gov’t w/aim to 2. YES.
overthrow current gov’t thru arms or propaganda a. Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers.
7. devastated economy due to b. Though the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not
a. accumulated foreign debt defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in
b. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies the Consti w/c include the power to protect the general welfare of the
Procedural Facts (Petitioners): people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare &
1. Filed a petition for mandamus & prohibition to order respondents to issue them advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Consti). Residual powers
travel documents & prevent implementation of President’s decision to bar dictate that the President can do anything w/c is not forbidden in the
Marcoses from returning. Consti (Roosevelt), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President
2. They question: (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace
a. President’s power to bar return of Marcoses. They ask if such is a political during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the
question. State.
b. President’s claim that such decisions may be made in the interest of national c. Any power not vested on the judicial and legislative bodies belong to the
security, public safety and health. Questions: a)clear & present danger b) executive. (Springer vs. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands)
was due process observed c) were petitioners notified d) was there proper d. Consider the fact that who is president affects & shapes the presidency.
hearing of the case e) were petitioners notified of the decision. They ask if e. It’s a folly to limit governmental powers to what is in the Constitution.
such is a political question & if such fact has been established. (Holmes Dissent)
c. President’s capacity to bar return of Marcoses. They claim that she acts f. The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible
outside/in excess of her jurisdiction. depending on the circumstances.
3. Petitioners claim that: g. Congress has recognized the President’s power by coming up with a
a. Such act deprives them of their rt. To life, liberty, property w/o due process resolution to urge Aquino to allow Marcoses to return.
& equal protection of the laws. h. The Constitution is a social contract between the sovereign who surrenders
b. Such act deprives them of their right to travel w/c according to law (Consti its powers to the chosen rulers for the common good.
Bill of Rights, Sec. 6) may only be impaired by a court order 3. NO.
c. Even international laws provide for their right to return: a) rt to leave any a. Factual bases – supervening events based on interviews w/AFP Chief of
country including one’s own country & return to his country (Universal Staff & National Security Adviser.
Declaration of Human Rights Art. 13) and b) rt to liberty, mov’t & freedom to b. The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of
choose residence, free to leave any country including is own not subj to the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.
restrictions except if necessary to protect nat’l security, pub Holding: President did not act arbitrarily or w/gadalej in barring Marcoses from
order/health/morals and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of rt to enter returning to the country. Their return, considering present time & circumstances,
own country (International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights) would pose as a serious threat to national interest & welfare. Petition dismissed.
Procedural Facts (Respondents):
1. This is a political question w/c includes the State’s rt. To security & safety, a Fernan, Concurring
question which only the President can determine. 1. The president’s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the imperatives of
2. Consider the supervening events w/c can endanger national security & public events and not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing a critical time
safety . and the current problem can only be answerable by the President.
3. Art II, Consti: State has the duty to maintain peace & order & protect rts of 2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present danger.
everyone & promote gen. welfare so everyone can enjoy democracy. Thus, it’s the executive’s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave & serious
4. International precedents: Trujillo of Dominican Rep., Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua, threat to its safety from arising.
etc. are among deposed dictators banned from returning to their countries 3. We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & economic gains to
Issues: give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion must give way to the
1. WON the right to travel is similar to the right to return to one’s country. other state interests.
2. WON it is w/in the President’s power to ban deposed dictators from returning to Gutierrez, Dissenting
the country. 1. The issue here is one of rights & not of powers. Bill of rights must be applied
3. WON the President in banning the deposed dictator from returning is acting with equally to everyone including rulers & people. The right to travel & abode may
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. only be impaired by a COURT ORDER and not an Executive Order such as what
Reasoning: the President has done. And it can only be impaired in the interest of national
security, public safety & public health or as may be provided by law. No proof of 2. Residual powers of the president must yield to the primacy of the bill of rights
such. We can’t interpret the Constitution for one person only. especially if it has not been proven why the president’s exercise of her residual
2. No proof of grave threat/danger. The military has been able to quell previous powers should override the mandate of the fundamental law. Only 2 exceptions
attacks. are created in impairing one’s right to travel: by statute or judicial mandate. If
3. It is not a political question. For such to exist, the Consti must provide that the presidential initiative was an option, it should have been included in the Consti.
power is vested exclusively in the President or Congress, prohibiting the courts As a matter of fact, present Consti has divested the Executive of that implied
to examine exercise of the power. Respondents failed to point out a Consti power to impair rights…it should always be w/in the limits of the law.
provision granting the President power to decide such questions. Closest 3. President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national security
provision would be commander-in-chief clause but there’s no rebellion or need should be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear & present.
to suspend writ of habeas corpus. Hardcore loyalists are few in number.
4. GADALEJ is determined by evidence. However, when president presents MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS II (October 27, 1989)
evidence, court is in no position to disprove them and it seems as if the Substantive Facts:
executive dept participates in the decision-making process or executive itself Sept. 28, 1989 – Marcos died in Honolulu
judges the suit (Morales vs. Enrile). Another option would be to avail of judicial Aquino statement – remains of Marcos will not be allowed to be brought to the
notice. Supervening events however are unrelated to the Marcoses. country in the interest of safety of those who will react conflictingly to the death
Disturbances are caused not by Marcos followers but by NPA. President has of Marcos and for tranquility of state & order of society. This will hold until
failed to pronounce that Marcos’ return would create a clear & present danger government, whether present or succeeding, decides otherwise.
to the security & public safety. Reasons cited (nat’l welfare & interest, preserve Petitioners Procedural Facts:
gains of recovery & stability) are too generic & sweeping. Even military has 1. pray that necessary travel documents be issued to them
expressed its capacity to quell opposing groups & that it’s on top of the 2. pray that respondents be enjoined from implementing Aquino’s decision to bar
situation. return of Marcos’ remain
5. It is Marcos’ constitutional right to be allowed to return home w/c is similar to 3. MFR filed Oct. 2, 1989 w/following arguments:
rts to go abroad or move around the country. Rt to return home is the most a. barring their return would deny them their inherent right as citizens to
impt among these rts. return to their country of birth & all other rights guaranteed by the Consti
6. If the President’s fears would happen once Marcos is allowed to return, to all Filipinos
President can act by arresting & trying him in court but no sense denying him b. President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country, if she has,
his right to return. she acted arbitrarily
7. Allow Marcos to return out of tradition & custom and in the interest of national c. No basis for barring their return
unity & reconciliation. Respondents Procedural Facts:
Cruz, Dissenting 1. MFR is moot & academic as to deceased Marcos
1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his own 2. Formal rights they’re invoking, right to return = right to destabilize the country,
country. It is a right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot, hide their efforts to destabilize
homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc. Issue: WON Marcos’ should be allowed to return to the country - NO
2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos’ return would pose a threat Reasoning:
to national security. Fears were mere conjectures. 1. Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant reconsideration.
3. Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her powers 2. Factual scenario during the time Court rendered its decision has not changed.
& not expand. Threats are still there. Imelda even made a comment about Marcos being the
Paras, Dissenting legal president.
1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair Marcos’ right 3. President has unstated residual powers implied from grant of executive power.
to return to the Philippines. . Enumerations are merely for specifying principal articles implied in the
2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies, he/she definition; leaving the rest to flow from general grant that power, interpreted in
should be buried w/in 10 days. conformity w/other parts of the Consti (Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress
Padilla, Dissenting can exercise power from sources not enumerates so long as not forbidden by
1. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is consti’l text (Myers vs. US). This does not amount to dictatorship. Amendment
powerless to restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if No. 6 expressly granted Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Consti
national security, public safety/health demands that such be restricted. It can’t granted Aquino w/implied powers.
be absolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational. 4. It is w/in Aquino’s power to protect & promote interest & welfare of the people.
2. No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public safety. She bound to comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she acted
Fears are speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos would arbitrarily or w/gadalej.
know how to handle Marcos’ return. Holding: Motion denied for lack of merit.
Sarmiento, Dissenting
1. Consti and international law do not distinguish between rights…only one right is
involved, right to travel w/in one’s country or another & right to return.
Cruz, Dissenting 4. That funding shall come from the budgets of the concerned agencies
No extraordinary reaction from so-called loyalists. There was only a display of - The AO was published in four newspapers of general circulation
passing interest, if not outright indifference. Feeble threat has died with him. His - After which, Senator Blas Ople filed a petition assailing its validity
death has reduced him to a non-person as State has admitted, no reason to be
scared of him. He’s just a cadaver waiting to be interred in his country. We have Contentions:
bigger problems. - Petitioner assails the validity of AO 308 on two grounds:
Paras, Dissenting 1. That the President has usurped the legislative power of Congress because:
1. dead still has rights – libel vs. deceased, etc. His widow & family have rights a. Establishment of the NCIRS requires a legislative act; and
too. b. Appropriation of public funds is an exclusive right of Congress
2. threats are still unproven & unpersuasive. Chaos might arise if we bar him from 2. That the NCIRS constitutes a violation of citizens’ right to privacy, which is
returning. “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized
3. Return might mean reconciliation. men” (J. Brandeis)
4. World will applaud our act of mercy. - Respondents, in return, allege that:
Padilla, Dissenting 1. The case is not justiciable (no legal standing and premature)
1. We have denied him his right to return & die in his country, let’s not deny him 2. That the issuance of the AO is within the Executive and Administrative
his rt to be buried here. We can’t apply Consti selectively, it should apply to all
Powers of the President (a. merely implements Administrative Code of 1987;
Filipinos whether dictator, pauper, learned, ignorant, religious, etc. All Filipinos and b. not a law)
have the constitutional right to be buried in his country. Government can lay
3. Funds may be source from the budgets of the concerned agency; and
down conditions if it pleases but it should recognize rt. We can’t abandon our 4. AO 308 sufficiently protects the individual’s right to privacy
ageless & finest tradition of respect & deference to the dead.
2. Respondents have yet to present hard evidence to prove alleged threats. All Issues:
they can give are general conclusions. Live Marcos did not pose serious threat,
I. W/N the requisites of judicial review are satisfied. YES
why should a dead one be any worse? There might be a graver threat if we II. W/N AO 308 violates the right to privacy. YES
deprive him of his rt to be buried here.
III. W/N the President usurped the legislative power of Congress in issuing AO 308.
Sarmiento, Dissenting YES
1. Still no proof of residual powers of the president whether implied / expressly
granted. See first dissent re presidential initiative etc. Reasoning:
2. Bill of Rights limits legislative & presidential intrusion on individual liberties.
I. All the requisites for judicial review are satisfied:
3. Threats are conjectures, speculations & imaginations. No hard evidence.
Military said they are on top of the situation & even President has expressed a. Locus Standi:
stability of the nation. - As Senator, has sufficient standing to raise the issue of usurpation of
legislative power
Ople vs. Torres
July 23, 1998
- As Taxpayer and Member of the GSIS, can raise the issue of
misalignment of public and GSIS funds.
Nature: Petition to invalidate Administrative Order #308 b. Ripeness
- The petitioner assails AO 308 as invalid per se and infirmed on its face
Petitioner: Senator Blas Ople - Promulgation of rules of implementation cannot cure its defect
Respondents: Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, and the heads of other gov’t - Respondents themselves have began implementation without waiting for
agencies charged with the implementation of AO 308 the rules
- All signs from respondents show their unswerving will to implement the
Facts: AO
- Pres. FVR issued AO 308, “Adoption of a National Computerized Identification - Insistence to tighten the rule on standing would result in throttling an
Reference System” (NCIRS), which provides, inter alia: important constitutional principle and a fundamental right
1. That participation in the identification system is required for persons
seeking basic services from the government, for the purpose of: II. AO 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and, hence, beyond the
a. convenience power of the President to issue
b. reduction of fraudulent transactions and misrepresentations - Definition of terms:
2. That an Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee (IACC) will draw-up the 1. LEGISLATIVE POWER – the authority under the Constitution to make, alter
implementation guidelines of the System and repeal laws
3. That IACC and the SSS shall establish the standards for the use of
“Biometrics Technology”
− Any power deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition is B. Respondents also try to argue that AO 308 is not a law because it confers no
necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has rights, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office.
lodged it elsewhere - ALSO REJECTED because no citizen can refuse to get identification
− Embraces all subjects and extends to matters of general concern or - Otherwise, they cannot transact business with government
common interest - They will have difficulty exercising their rights and enjoying their privileges
- Fisher: Regulations should not be substituted for the general policy-
2. EXECUTIVE POWER – the power to enforce and administer laws making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law… The authority to
− the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to
their due observance make laws.

3. THE PRESIDENT – represents the government as a whole III. AO 308 violates the constitutionally enshrined right to privacy, which is
− sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of essentially the “right to be left alone”
his department - Griswold vs. Connecticut: There is a right to privacy which can be found within
− has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive the penumbras of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights… Various
department, bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its guarantees create zones of privacy
officials - In Morfe vs. Mutuc we adopted the Griswold ruling into our jurisdiction
− Corollary to this is the duty to supervise the enforcement of laws for - In fact, the right to privacy is enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution
the maintenance of general peace and public order (Administrative (see Article III, Sections 3(1), 1, 2, 6, 8, 17)
power) - They are also recognized by our laws (i.e. Civil Code, RPC, special laws)

4. ADMINISTRATIVE POWER – concerns applying policies and enforcing orders - Since the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the
as determined by proper governmental organs Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to show that AO
308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is
− Enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative narrowly drawn.
efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents - It is debatable whether the reasons of convenience and reduction of fraud are
compelling enough
5. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS – defined by Section 3, Chapter 2, Title I, Book - Worse, it is inarguable that the broadness, vagueness and overbreadth of
III of the Administrative Code of 1987 AO308 will put our people’s right to privacy in clear and present danger
− Acts of the President that: − “Biometrics” is the science of the application of statistical methods to
1. relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of biological facts; a mathematical analysis of biological data
government − The most common form is fingerprinting, which is the scanning of the
2. in harmony with the law fingertips and the storage of such data to identify individuals
3. must be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying − Today, however, biometrics is not merely limited to the use of fingerprints
out the legislative policy − AO308 does not state:
a. What specific biological characteristics will be gathered
A. Respondents try to argue that AO 308 merely implements the intent of the b. What particular biometrics technology will be employed
Administrative Code of 1987 (AC1987). c. Whether data is limited to use for identification purposes only
- COURT REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT d. How data will be handled
- AC1987 is a general law e. Who shall control and access the data
- It cannot be simplistically said that AO 308 mere implements AC1987 ∴AO308 does not assure the individual of a reasonable expectation of privacy
because it: because, as technology advances, the level of reasonable expected privacy
1. establishes for the first time the NCIRS; decreases
2. requires delicate adjustment of various contending state policies (e.g.
primacy of national interest, extent of privacy interest against dossier- CALDERON VS. CARALE (April 22, 1992)
gathering of the government, choice of policies, etc.); Petition for prohibition to review the constitutionality & legality of the appointment
3. redefines the parameters of some basic rights of our citizenry vis-à-vis of respondents
the State; and
4. it redefines the line that separates the administrative power of the FACTS:
President to make rules and the legislative power of Congress Sec.16, Art.VII: The President shall nominate &, w/ the consent of the Com on
∴ THESE DEAL WITH A SUBJECT THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY LAW Appointments (CA), appoint the heads of the exec depts., ambassadors, other public
ministers & consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain & other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Consti. He • The present petition questions the constitutionality & legality of the
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not permanent appointments mentioned above w/o submitting the same to CA
otherwise provided for by law, & those whom he may be authorized by law to for confirmation pursuant to Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA
appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in 6715.
rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of depts., agencies,
commissions, or boards.
• PETITIONER: insists on a mandatory compliance w/ RA 6715. Mison &
Bautista are not decisive in this case for in the case at bar, the Pres issued
• Sarmiento III v. Mison: (On power of CA to confirm appointments) The permanent appointments w/o submitting them to CA for confirmation
position of the BOC Commissioner (a bureau head) is not one of those w/n despite passage of a law (RA 6715) w/c requires the confirmation by the
the 1st grp of appointments where the consent of the CA is required. While CA of such appointments.
the 1935 Consti includes ‘heads of bureaus’ among those officers whose
appointments need the consent of the CA, the 1987 Consti deliberately
• SOLGEN (RESPONDENTS): RA 6715 transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII by
excluded the position of ‘heads of bureaus’ from appointments that need expanding the confirmation powers of CA w/o const’l basis. Mison
the consent of CA. The intent was to exclude pres’l appointments from &Bautista laid the issue to rest.
confirmation by CA, except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in • SOLGEN: “Three points as regards subsec. 3 of Sec. 10 of Art VII of the
the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII. 1935 Consti & in the orig text of Sec. 16, Art. VII of 1987 Consti as
• Bautista v. Salonga: The position of Chairman of the Com on Human Rights proposed in Resolution No. 517: 1) in both, the appointments of heads of
is not among those mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII of bureaus were required to be confirmed by CA; 2) in both, the
1987 Consti, appointments to w/c are to be made w/ the confirmation of appointments of other officers “whose appointments are not otherwise
the CA. The Pres appoints the CHR Chairman & members pursuant to the provided for by law to appoint” are expressly made subject to confirmation
2nd sentence in Sec. 16, Art VII, that is, w/o confirmation of CA bec they by CA. However, in the final version of Resolution No. 517, as embodied in
are among the officers of govt whom the Pres ‘may be authorized by law Sec. 16, Art. VII of 1987 Consti, the appointment of heads of bureaus &
to appoint.’ And Sec 2(c) of EO 163 authorizes the Pres to appoint the other officers whose appointments are not provided for by law & those
Chairman & members of CHR. whom he may be authorized by law to appoint – are excluded from the list
of those officers whose appointments are to be confirmed by CA; 3) Under
• Quintos Deles, et al. v. The Commission on Const’l Commissions: Since the 1935 Consti, the word “nominate” qualifies the entire Subsec.3 of Sec. 10
seats reserved for sectoral reps in par.2, Sec. 5, Art VI may be filled by of Art VII thereof.
appointment by the Pres by express provision of Sec. 7, Art XVIII of the
Consti, it is indubitable that sectoral reps are among the ‘other officers
• SOLGEN: If confirmation is required, the 3 stage process of nomination,
whose appointments are vested in the Pres in this Consti’ referred to in the confirmation & appointment operates. This is only true of the 1st grp
1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII whose appointments are subject to CA enumerated in Sec. 16, Art. VII but the word nominate does not appear in
confirmation. the 2nd & 3rd sentences. Therefore, the president’s appointment pursuant to
• DOCTRINES FROM THE 3 CASES: the 2nd & 3rd sentences need no confirmation.

1) Confirmation by CA is required only for presidential appointees ISSUE:
mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art VII, including those
officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the Consti in the
1) WON Congress may, by law, require confirmation by CA of appointments
Pres. extended by the President to government officers additional to those
expressly mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII whose
2) Confirmation is not required when the Pres appoints other govt officers appointments require confirmation by the CA.
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law or those
officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. Also, in Mison, RATIO:
when Congress creates inferior offices but omits to provide for
appointment thereto, or provides in an unconst’l manner for such
appointments, the officers are considered as among those whose • Mison: There are 4 groups of officers whom the Pres shall appoint
appointments are not other wise provided by law. 1) Heads of exec depts., ambassadors, other public ministers &
consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
• March 1989, RA 6715, amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved.
naval captain, & other officers whose appointment are vested in
• Sec. 13, RA 6715: “The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners him in this Consti.
shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by CA….” 2) All other officers of the Govt whose appointments are not
• Pursuant to RA 6715, Pres Aquino appointed the Chairman & otherwise provided for by law
Commissioners of the NLRC. Drilon then issued AO No. 161, designating 3) Those whom the Pres may be authorized by law to appoint
the places of assignment of the newly appointed commissioners.
4) Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by  Manalo questions the constitutionality and legality of the permanent
law vest in the Pres alone. appointments issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino to the
• In the course of the debates on the text of Sec 16, Art VII, there were 2 respondent senior officers of the Philippine National Police who were
promoted to the ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director without their
major changes proposed & approved by Const’l Commission: 1) exclusion
appointments submitted to the Commission on Appointments for
of the appointments of heads of bureaus from the requirement of
confirmation under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and
confirmation by CA; 2) exclusion of appointments made under the 2nd
Republic Act 6975 otherwise known as the Local Government Act of 1990.
sentence of the section from the same requirement.
 Secretary Enriquez III of the Budget and Management is also impleaded
• The 2nd sentence refers to all other officers of the govt whose appointments because he approved and effected the disbursements for the salaries and
are not otherwise provided for by law & those whom the Pres may be other emoluments of the police officers.
authorized by law to appoint.  December 13, 1990 – RA 6975 was signed by President Aquino. This law
created the Department of Interior and Local Government
• The NLRC Chairman & Commissioners fall w/n the 2nd sentence of Sec 16,
Art VII, more specifically, under the “third grp” in Mison (I.e. those whom  Section 26 of RA 6975 provided that the Chief of the PNP shall be
the Pres may be authorized by law to appoint). Thus, they are not among appointed by the President from among the senior officers down to the
those mentioned in 1st sentence whose appointments require confirmation rank of the chief superintendent, subject to confirmation by the
by CA. Commission on Appointments: Provided, That the Chief of the PNP shall
• To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by CA of the serve a term of office not to exceed four (4) years.
appointments of respondents Chairman & Members of NLRC, it is  Section 31 of RA 6975 provided how the appointment of PNP officers and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL because: members will be effected:
1) It amends by legislation, the 1st sentence of Sec 16, Art VII by adding o (c) Senior Superintendent to Deputy Director General - Appointed
thereto appointments requiring confirmation by CA by the President upon recommendation of the Chief of the PNP,
with the proper endorsement by the Chairman of the Civil Service
2) It amends by legislation the 2nd sentence of Sec 16, Art VII by
Commission and subject to confirmation by the Commission on
imposing the confirmation of the CA on appointments w/c are Appointments;
otherwise entrusted only w/ the Pres.
• Legislation cannot expand a const’l provision after the SC has interpreted
o (d) Director General - Appointed by the President from among the
it. senior officers down to the rank of chief superintendent in the
service, subject to confirmation by the Commission on
• Sec 16, Art VII was deliberately intended by the framers to be a departure Appointments; Provided, That the Chief of the PNP shall serve a
from the system embodied in the 1935 Consti where the CA exercised the tour of duty not to exceed four (4) years; Provided, further, That,
power of confirmation over almost all pres’l appointments, leading to many in times of war or other national emergency declared by Congres,
cases of abuse of such power of confirmation. the President may extend such tour of duty.
• Subsec. 3, Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1935 Consti: “The Pres shall nominate &  March 10, 1992 – The president promoted 15 respondent police officers by
appointing them to positions in the PNP with the rank of Chief
w/ the consent of the CA, shall appoint the heads of the exec depts. &
Superintendent and Director.
bureaus, officers of the Army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy & Air
 The appointments were made in a permanent capacity. Their names were
Forces from the rank of captain or commander, & all other officers of the
not submitted to the Commission of Appointment for Confirmation.
Govt whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, & those
 October 21, 1992 – petitioner filed the case as a taxpayer suit, to assail the
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
legality of subject appointments and disbursements made.
• The solution to Congress’ displeasure/disapproval to the deliberate
 The contentions of the petitioners are:
limitation on the CA’s power of confirmation is a future const’l change w/c
o Republic Act 6975 is a valid law that duly requires confirmation of
may consider either a return to the 1935 const’l provisions or the adoption
the appointments of officers from the rank of senior
of a hybrid system bet’n 1935 & 1987 Consti.
superintendent and higher by the Commission on Appointments
o The Philippine National Police is akin to the Armed Forces where
HELD; Petition DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715
insofar as it requires the confirmation of CA of appointments of the Chairman & the Constitution specifically requires confirmation by the
Members of the NLRC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL & of no legal force & effect. Commission on Appointments

Manalo vs. Sistoza [August 11, 1999] Issue: WON the appointment of the PNP are valid even without the confirmation of
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition the Commission of Appointments. YES

Facts: Ratio:
On December 29, 1961, President Carlos P. Garcia appointed Dominador R. Aytona
 The petitioners theorizes that every statute passed by Congress is
as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank. On the same day, the latter took the
presumed to have been carefully studied and considered before its
corresponding oath.
enactment and that the court should avoid, as much as possible, deciding
constitutional questions. The court agreed with the petitioner but they also
On December 30, 1961, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office; and on
stated that the court also has the duty to strike down laws that are
December 31, 1961, he issued Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing,
and canceling all ad interim appointment made by President Garcia after December
 The power to make appointments is vested in the Chief Executive. (Article
13, 1961, (date when he, Macapagal, had been proclaimed elected by the
VII section 16)
Congress). On January 1, 1962, President Macapagal appointed Andres V. Castillo as
 In Sarmiento III vs. Mison: it was held that Section 16 of Article VII of the ad interim Governor of the Central Bank, and the latter qualified immediately.
1987 Constitution requiring confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of certain appointments issued by the President In revoking the appointments, President Macapagal is said to have acted for these
contemplates a system of checks and balances between the executive and and other reasons:
legislative branches of government.
 The framers of the 1987 Constitution deemed it imperative to subject (1) The outgoing President should have refrained from filling vacancies to
certain high positions in the government to the power of confirmation of give the new President opportunity to consider names in the light of his
the Commission on Appointments and to allow other positions within the new policies,
exclusive appointing power of the President.
 Four groups of officers of the government to be appointed by the president (2) These scandalously hurried appointments in mass do not fall within the
1. heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public intent and spirit of the constitutional provision authorizing the issuance of
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank ad interim appointments
of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution; (3) The appointments were irregular, immoral and unjust, because they
2. all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not were issued upon the condition that the appointee would immediately
otherwise provided for by law; qualify obviously to prevent a revocation by the incoming President, with
3. those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; the result deserving officials who preferred to be named by the new
4. officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by President declined and were by-passed
law vest in the President alone.
 Only appointments that fall under the first group requires the confirmation (4) The abnormal conditions surrounding the appointment and
of the commission of appointments qualifications evinced a desire on the part of the outgoing President to
subvert the policies of the incoming administration.
 Tarrosa vs. Singson: Congress cannot by law expand the power of
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments and require confirmation On January 2, 1962, both appointed exercised the powers of their office, although
of appointments of other government officials not mentioned in the first Castillo informed Aytona of his title thereto; and some unpleasantness developed in
sentence of Section 16 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. the premises of the Central Bank. However, the next day and thereafter, Aytona was
 Section 4 of Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution provides for the definitely prevented from holding office in the Central Bank.
characteristics of the armed forces while Section 6 provides for the police
force Aytona claims he was validly appointed, had qualified for the post, and therefore,
 PNP is separate and distinct from the AFP. RA 6975 distinguishes the police the subsequent appointment and qualification of Castillo was void, because the
force from the armed forces. In this law it is provided that no element of position was then occupied by him. Castillo replies that the appointment of Aytona
the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied had been revoked by Administrative Order No. 2 of Macapagal.
by active members of the AFP.
 Police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the Thus, Aytona instituted this proceeding which is practically, a quo warranto,
ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine National challenging Castillo's right to exercise the powers of Governor of the Central Bank.
Police. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP, such as the
herein respondent police officers, do not fall under the first category of Issue:
presidential appointees requiring the confirmation by the Commission on WON petition should be granted in favor of Aytona.
Ratio/Holding: No. Petition Dismissed.
respondents. (January 19, 1962) The record shows that President Garcia sent to the Commission on Appointments —
which was not then in session – three communication letters with a total of about
Facts: three hundred fifty (350) "midnight" or "last minute" appointments.
None of precedents in favor of petitioner refer to mass ad interim
It is Malacañan's practice to submit ad interim appointments only when the appointments (three-hundred and fifty), issued in the last hours of an
Commission on Appointments is in session. This time, Malacañan submitted its outgoing Chief Executive, in a setting similar to that outlined herein. On the
appointments on the same day they were issued; and the Commission was not then other hand, the authorities admit of exceptional circumstances justifying
in session; obviously because it foresaw the possibility that the incoming President revocation3 and if any circumstances justify revocation, those described
would refuse to submit later the appointees of his predecessor. herein should fit the exception.

Because of the haste and irregularities, some judges of first instance qualified for The appointees, it might be argued, wittingly or unwittingly cooperated with the
districts wherein no vacancies existed, because the incumbents had not qualified for stratagem to beat the deadline, whatever the resultant consequences to the dignity
other districts to which they had been supposedly transferred or promoted. and efficiency of the public service. Needless to say, there are instances
Referring specifically to judges who had not qualified, the course of conduct adopted wherein not only strict legality, but also fairness, justice and righteousness
by Former Chief Justice Moran is cited. Being ambassador in Spain and desiring to should be taken into account.
return to this Court even as associate justice, Moran was tendered an ad interim
appointment thereto by President Quirino, after the latter had lost the election to Note: The issue of WON the new President had power to issue the order of
President Magsaysay, and before leaving the Presidency. Said Ambassador declined cancellation of the ad interim appointments made by the past President, even after
to qualify being of the opinion that the matter should be left to the incoming newly- the appointees had already qualified was mentioned in this case but not really
elected President. addressed. In Quimsing v Tanjanglangit, the SC stated that “In the various cases
decided by this Court after the Aytona vs. Castillo case the matter of the validity of
It is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of appointments made after December 13, 1961 by former President Garcia was
President Macapagal, President Garcia was no more than a "care-taker" considered not in the light of the said Administrative Order No. 2 (which was never
administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of upheld by this Court), but on the basis of the nature, character and merit of the
authority the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he ought individual appointments and the particular circumstances surrounding the same.”
to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor.
It was not for President Garcia to use powers as incumbent President to continue
the political warfare that had ended or to avail himself of presidential prerogatives EUFEMIO P. TESORO vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
to serve partisan purposes. The filling up vacancies in important positions, if
few, and so spaced to afford some assurance of deliberate action and FACTS (MORAN, J):
careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee's On October 10, 1934, petitioner Eufemio P. Tesoro was convicted in CFI of Manila of
qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But the issuance of 350 the crime of falsification of a public document and sentenced to an indeterminate
appointments in one night and planned induction of almost all of them a penalty of from 2-3 yrs, 6 mos and 21 days, to pay a fine PhP100 or undergo
few hours before the inauguration of the new President may, with some subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This penalty was to expire on
reason, be regarded by the latter as an abuse. Presidential prerogatives, the October 28, 1937. On November 14, 1935, then Governor-General Frank Murphy
steps taken being apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions granted the petitioner a parole, which the latter accepted, subject to the ff
irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby deprive the new conditions:
administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments. 1. That he will live in the City of Manila and will not change his residence
without first obtaining the consent of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence;
Normally, when the President makes appointments the consent of the Commission 2. That he will not commit any other crime and will conduct himself in an
on Appointments, he has benefit of their advice. When he makes ad interim orderly manner;
appointments, he exercises a special prerogative and is bound to be prudent to 3. That he will report, during the period of his parole, to the Executive
insure approval of his selection either previous consultation with the members of the Secretary of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, during the first year, once a
Commission or by thereafter explaining to them the reason such selection. Where, month, and thereafter, once every three months.
however, as in this case, the Commission on Appointments that will Should any of the conditions stated be violated, the sentence imposed shall
consider the appointees is different from that existing at the time of the again be in full force and effect.
appointment2 and where the names are to be submitted by successor, who
may not wholly approve of the selections, the President should be doubly On December 3, 1937, petitioner was again charged in the justice of the peace
careful in extending such appointments. Now, it is hard to believe that in court of San Juan, Rizal, with a different crime, adultery, alleged to have been
signing 350 appointments in one night, President Garcia exercised such committed with one Concordia Dairo, wife of petitioner's brother-in-law, Jose Nagar.
"double care" which was required and expected of him; and therefore,
there seems to be force to the contention that these appointments fall Sometime in Feb, 1938, the same Jose Nagar lodged a complaint with Board of
beyond the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision granting to the Indeterminate Sentence, and upon the same facts, charged the petitioner with
Executive authority to issue ad interim appointments. violation of the conditions of his parole. On Feb 4, 1938, petitioner addressed a
letter to the board denying the charges. On the same date, parole officer Figalang,
assigned to investigate the case, submitted his report to the board. The acting once every three months. By his consent to this condition, petitioner has placed
chairman of the board then addressed a communication to the President of the himself under the supervision of the board. The duty to report on the part of the
Philippines, recommending the arrest and reincarceration of the petitioner. petitioner implies a corresponding power on the part of the board to inquire into his
conduct, and a fortiori to make recommendations to the President by whose
On Feb 19, 1938, the Pres issued an order finding Tesoro to have violated the authority it was acting. Besides, the power to revoke paroles necessarily carries with
condition in his parole about not committing any other crime and to conduct himself it the power to investigate and to inquire into the conduct of the parolees, if such
in an orderly manner. It was found that upon the death of the sister of Jose Nagar, power of revocation is to be rational and intelligent. In the exercise of this incidental
he w/ his wife lived w/ Tesoro in order to mitigate the grief of the bereaved family power of inquiry and investigation, the Pres is not precluded by law or by the
and to help in the keeping of the house and caring of the children in San Juan, Rizal. Constitution from making use of any agency of the government, or even of
But Tesoro took advantage of the frequent absences of Jose Nagar from the house, any individual, to secure the necessary assistance. When, therefore, the
and he succeeded in having illicit relations with Narag’s wife and even went to the President chose to entrust his power of inquiry upon the Board of Indeterminate
extent of taking her away. He now lives with her in adultery. Sentence, a government agency created precisely for the concern of persons
released on parole, he acted both upon legal authority and good judgment.
By virtue Sec 64 of the Administrative Code, Tesoro was arrested and committed to
the custody of the Director of Prisons, Manila, who was authorized to confine him Appellant further contends that judicial pronouncement to the effect that he has
person for the service of the unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which committed a crime is necessary before he can be properly adjudged as having
he was originally committed to prison. Petitioner sued for a writ of habeas corpus violated his conditional parole. Under condition No 2 of his parole, petitioner agreed
against the Director of Prisons, and upon denial by TC, took the present appeal. that he "will not commit any other crime and will conduct himself in an orderly
manner." It was, therefore, the mere commission, not his conviction by court, of
any other crime, that was necessary in order that the petitioner may be deemed
Sec 64 (i) of the Administrative Code, by virtue of which the petitioner was granted to have violated his parole. And under section 64 (i) of the Administrative Code, the
parole, gives the Governor-General the following powers and duties: Chief Executive is authorized to order "the arrest and re-incarceration of any such
To grant to convicted persons reprieves or pardons, either plenary or partial, person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with the condition, or conditions,
conditional or unconditional; to suspend sentences without pardon, remit of his pardon, parole, or suspension of sentence."
fines, and order the discharge of any convicted person upon parole, subject
to such conditions as he may impose; and to authorize the arrest and re- It is also Tesoro’s contention that, upon the expiration of his maximum term of
incarceration of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply imprisonment, his conditional parole also expires. In other words, he holds the view
with the condition, or conditions, of his pardon, parole, or suspension of that the period during which he was out on parole should be counted as service of
sentence. his original sentence. When a conditional pardon is violated, the prisoner is placed
Par 6, Sec 11, Art VII, of the Constitution, provides as follows: in the same state in which he was at the time the pardon was granted. He may be
The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and rearrested and recommitted to prisons. Although there is no statutory provision
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction, for all offenses, squarely governing the case with respect to the duration of the petitioner's
except in cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such confinement after his recommitment, the terms of the parole shall govern. From
restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. He shall have the express terms of the parole that "should any of the conditions stated be
the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly. violated, the sentence imposed shall again be in full force and effect," it is evident
that the petitioner herein should serve the unexpired portion of the penalty
Appellant contends that section 64 (i) of the Administrative Code, w/c confers upon originally imposed upon him by the court.
the Chief Executive the power to grant and revoke paroles, has been impliedly
repealed by Par 6, Sec 11, Art VII, of the Constitution, as the consti’l provision Judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellant. Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real,
omitted to specify such power in connection with the powers granted therein to the Imperial, Laurel and Diaz, JJ., concur.
Pres. This is untenable. The power to pardon given to the Pres by the Constitution,
"upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem Wilfredo TORRES, petitioner vs. Neptali GONZALES, Chairman Board of
proper to impose," includes the power to grant and revoke paroles. If the omission Pardons & Parole, and the Director, Bureau of Prisons, respondents
of the power of parole in the Constitution is to be construed as its denial to the Pres, Original Petition for Habeas Corpus [July 23, 1987]
the effect would be to discharge unconditionally parolees, who, before the adoption
of the Constitution, have been released conditionally by the Chief Executive. That Facts:
such effect was never intended by the Constitutional Convention is obviously beyond ♥ Before 1979: Torres was convicted of 2 counts of estafa & sentenced to 11 y 10
question. m & 22 d to 38 y 9 m 1 d imprisonment. Affirmed by CA & max sentence would
expire Nov. 2, 2000.
Appellant also contends that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence has no legal ♥ He was granted a conditional pardon by the Pres on condition that he won’t
authority to investigate the conduct of the petitioner, and recommend the revocation violate any of the penal laws of the Phil & if he violates the condition, he will be
of his parole. By the terms of his parole, petitioner agreed to report the executive proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law. He accepted the conditional
secretary of the board once a month during the 1st yr of his parole, and, thereafter, pardon & was released.
♥ May 21, 1986: Board of Pardons & Parole (BPP) recommended to the Pres conclusion by the gov gen that he violated the conditions of his parole & order
cancellation of the conditional pardon based on the ff evidence: for his arrest is conclusive upon him.
1. He was charged w/20 counts of estafa on March 22, 82 – June 24, 82. ♥ Espuelas vs Provincial Warden of Bohol: court held that due process is not
2. He was convicted of sedition on June 26, 1985, case is now pending appeal necessarily judicial. The petitioner already had his day in court & afforded the
before the IAC. opportunity to defend himself during trial for the crime with w/c he was
3. NBI sent a letter to the BPP on Jan. 14, 1986 showing a long list of charges conditionally pardoned. No other dept has the authority to determine WON the
brought against Torres in the last 20 yrs. Including estafa, swindling, grave conditions of the pardon have been violated except the gov gen. Court
threats, grave coercion, illegal possession of firearms, ammunition & reaffirmed validity of Sec. 64.
explosives, malicious mischief, violation of BP 22, violation of BP 772 ♥ Thus, grant of pardon & determination of its terms & conditions are executive
(interfering w/police functions). Some were dismissed & NBI did not acts not subj to judicial scrutiny. In determining WON the conditions have been
purport to be a status report of the charges. breached, two options are available:
♥ Sept. 8, 1986: Pres cancelled conditional pardon. An Order of Arrest & 1. Executive: RAC Sec. 64 (i). No judicial pronouncement of guilt/conviction
Recommitment was issued & Torres was accordingly arrested & confined in by final judgment of a subsequent crime is necessary. This is not
Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. unconstitutional since the accused has already been accorded judicial due
♥ Petitioner contends that he did not violate the conditional pardon since he has process in his trial & conviction for offense for w/c he was conditionally
not been convicted by final judgment of all the charges against him. He also pardoned.
argues that he was not given the opportunity to be heard before he was 2. Judicial: trial & conviction of violation of conditional pardon under RPC Art.
arrested & recommitted thus depriving him of his right to due process. 159 w/c provides the penalty of prision correccional, minimum, upon a
convict who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Exec shall
Issues: WON conviction of a crime by final judgment is necessary before the violate any of the conditions of such pardon.
petitioner can be validly rearrested & recommitted for violation of the terms of his ♥ President chose option #1. It’s an exercise of his executive prerogative & is not
conditional pardon to serve the balance of his original sentence. subj to judicial scrutiny.

Held: NO. Petition dismissed. BARRIOQUINTO v. FERNANDEZ
82 Phil. 642 (1949)
♥ Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons: similar case wherein he was granted parole but
was charged w/adultery later on but the case was dismissed. He was still Facts:
charged of violating the conditions & was arrested & recommitted. Like Torres,  Petitioners Norberto Jimenez and Loreto Barrioquinto were charged with the
he claimed that a judicial pronouncement that he committed a crime was crime of murder. Barrioquinto had not yet been arrested. The case proceeded
necessary before he can be adjudged as having violated his conditional parole. against Jimenez and he was sentenced Jimenez to life imprisonment.
Court ruled that determining WON the conditions of the parole had been  Before the period for perfecting an appeal had expired, Jimenez availed of
breached rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the Gov Gen & such is not Proclamation No. 8 which grants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be
subj to the review of the courts. It was granted by the Pres & he agreed to the charged with an act penalized under the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to
terms of the grant of parole thus he cannot invoke the aid of the courts no the enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, and
matter how erroneous the findings for his recommitment may be. Sec. 64 (i) of committed during the period from Dec. 8, 1941, to the date when particular
the Revised Administrative Code (RAC) empowered the Gov Gen to grant area of the Philippines where the offense was actually committed was liberated
reprieves/pardons to convicted prisoners & to authorize their from enemy control and occupation.
arrest/recommitment if they fail to comply w/the condition/s of the  He submitted his case to the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission presided by the
pardon/parole/suspension of sentence. respondents herein, and the other petitioner Barrioquinto, who had then been
♥ Sales vs. Director of Prisons: similar case. The court here ruled that RPC Art. already apprehended, did the same.
159 did not repeal RAC Sec. 64 (i), they can stand together & proceeding under  After a preliminary hearing had started, the Amnesty Commission had their
one provision did not preclude action under the other. Act No. 4109 cases returned to the CFI Zamboanga, without deciding whether or not they are
(Indeterminate Sentence Law) preserved the authority vested on the Pres by entitled to the benefits of he said Amnesty Proclamation, on the ground that
Sec. 64. It likewise held that Sec. 64 was not repugnant to the constitutional neither Barrioquinto nor Jimenez have admitted having committed the offense,
grant of due process since the petitioner was already a convict & had been because Barrioquinto alleged that it was Hipolito Tolentino who shot and killed
seized in a constitutional way. He has confronted his accusers & witnesses the victim, they cannot invoke the benefits of amnesty. Respondents are of the
against him and he has been convicted & sentenced to that specific idea that the "invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of
punishment. He was not constitutionally entitled to another judicial confession and avoidance."
determination of WON he had breached the condition of is parole by committing
a subsequent offense. In accepting the conditional parole, he has agreed that a Issue: WON Petitioners are precluded from availing the benefits of Amnesty as they
have not admitted to the commission of the crime
 NO. Respondents fail to differentiate between amnesty and pardon. pleads not guilty or that he has not committed the act with which he is charged,
does not necessarily prove that he is not guilty thereof. Notwithstanding his
PARDON AMNESTY denial, the evidence for the prosecution or complainant may show the contrary,
Pardon is granted by the Chief Amnesty by Proclamation of as it is generally the case in criminal proceedings, and what should in such a
Executive and as such it is a the Chief Executive with the case be determined is whether or not the offense committed is of political
private act which must be concurrence of Congress, character. The plea of not having committed the offense made by an accused
pleaded and proved by the and it is a public act of which simply means that he can not be convicted of the offense charged because he is
person pardoned, because the the courts should take not guilty thereof, and, even if the evidence would show that he is, because he
courts take no notice thereof judicial notice has committed it in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against
Pardon is granted to one after Amnesty is granted to persons a ding in the war efforts of the enemy, and not for purely political
conviction classes of persons or motives.
communities who may be  According to A.O. No. 11 of October 2, 1946 creating the Amnesty Commissions,
guilty of political offenses, cases pending in the CFIs of the province in which the accused claims the
generally before or after the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation, and cases already decided by said courts but
institution of the criminal not yet elevated on appeal to the appellate courts, shall be passed upon and
prosecution and sometimes decided by the respective Amnesty Commission, and cases pending appeal shall
after conviction be passed upon by the Seventh Amnesty Commission. To hold that a Amnesty
Pardon looks forward and relieves Amnesty looks backward and Commission should not proceed to the investigation and act and decide whether
the offender from the abolishes and puts into the offense with which an accused was charged comes within the Amnesty
consequences of an offense of oblivion the offense itself, it Proclamation if he does not admit or confess having committed it would be to
which he has been convicted, so overlooks and obliterates defeat the purpose for which the Amnesty Proclamation was issued and the
that is, it abolished or forgives the offense with which he is Amnesty Commission were established.
the punishment, and for that charged that the person  If a defendant had to confess having committed the offense before he can
reason it does ""nor work the released by amnesty stands invoke the benefit of amnesty, and given that such admission or confession may
restoration of the rights to hold before the law precisely as be used as evidence against him in the courts of justices in case the Amnesty
public office, or the right of though he had committed no Commission finds that the offense does not come within the terms of the
suffrage, unless such rights be offense. (section 10[6], Amnesty Proclamation, nobody or few would take the risk of submitting their
expressly restored by the terms Article VII, Philippine case to said Commission.
of the pardon," and it "in no case constitution  Besides, Barrioquinto’s allegation that the offended party or victim was killed by
exempts the culprit from the Hipolito , does not necessarily bar the respondents from finding, after the
payment of the civil indemnity summary hearing of the witnesses for the complaints and the accused, directed
imposed upon him by the in the said Amnesty Proclamation and AO No. 11, that the petitioners are
sentence" art. 36, RPC) responsible for the killing of the victim because they were members of the same
group of guerrilleros who killed the victim in furtherance of the resistance to the
 HELD: In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
of 1946, it is not necessary that he should, as a condition precedent or sine qua
non, admit having committed the criminal act or offense with which he is Held: respondents ordered to immediately proceed to hear and decide the
charged and allege the amnesty as a defense; it is sufficient that the evidence application for amnesty of Barrioquinto and Jimenez, unless the courts have in the
either of the complainant or the accused, shows that the offense committed meantime already decided the question WON they are entitled Amnesty
comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation. Proclamation benefits.
 A person who is regarded by the Amnesty Proclamation which has the force of a
law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law as if he had never
committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or
hero, can not be punishment as a criminal. Just as the courts of justice can not
convict a person who, according to the evidence, has committed an act not
punishable by law, although he confesses being guilty thereof, so also and a
fortiori they can not convict a person considered by law not a criminal, but as a
patriot and hero, for having rendered invaluable services to the nation in
committing such an act.
 There is no necessity for an accused to admit his responsibility for the
commission of a criminal act before a court of Amnesty Commission may
investigate and extend or not to him the benefits of amnesty. The fact that he