Soliven vs.

Makasiar

In this case the issue of whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution,
may initiate criminal proceeding against the petitioner through filing of a complaint-affidavit.
Petitioner contends that when the President files a complaint-affidavit, she may subsequently
have to be a witness for prosecution, bringing her under the court’s jurisdiction. And according
to the petitioner, this is an indirect way to defeat state immunity as the President would be
exposed to possible contempt of court or perjury

Issue
WON the President can file a criminal case YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the privilege of immunity from suit , pertains to the President by
the virtue of the office and may only be invoked by the holder, not by any other person in the
President’s behalf. An accused in a criminal case filed by the President cannot invoke the
immunity as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding. Furthermore, the President may
waive this privilege, the choice of whether or not to exercise this privilege is under the
prerogative of the President.

De Lima v. Duterte

Senator Leila De Lima delivered a privilege speech calling a stop for the extrajudicial killing that
started during the Duterte administration. In response , Duterte issued a number of public
statement against Sen. De Lima, including denunciation of her corruption and immorality.
1. “I will have to destroy her in public”
2. Accused her of having an affair with her driver and also accused her of being involved
with illegal drug trade
3. Asking De Lima to hang her self
According to Sen. De Lima these statements from the President is a violation of her right to
privacy, life, liberty, and security. She also stated that there is a continued violation of these
rights as according to the President, he is listening with the help of another country. This
prompted De Lima to file a case against the President, she argued that the statements made by
the President is not entitled to immunity from suit because this action and statements were
unlawful; or made outside his official conduct. The OSG argued that the immunity from suit is
absolute and that the statements were made in pursuance to the duty of the President to
faithfully execute the law.

Issue
WON the privilege of immunity from suit is absolute YES
Ratio
The Presidential immunity from suit is not stated in the Constitution, however the Court said
that there is no need for it to be mentioned as it is already understood that the President is
immune from suit during his tenure. The Supreme Court stated that unlike in America, the
concept of presidential immunity under our system does not distinguish whether the act done
by the President is under his official capacity or not. The immunity is absolute as to any kind of
case. The Supreme Court stated that the rationale of the grant of immunity is to assure the
exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distractions.

Gloria v. CA

Respondent in this case was appointed by the President as the Schools division Superintendent.
The Secretary of DECS recommended to the President that the respondent be reassigned as
Superintendent of Marikina Institute of Science and Technology to fill up the vacant position.
The President approved the recommendation. Respondent requested for a reconsideration
however this was denied by the Secretary and also by the Court of Appeals. However, CA set
aside their previous decision and restrained the Secretary from implementing the
reassignment. The court justified their decision stating that the lack of period or indication that
the reassignment is temporary is violative of respondent’s right to security of tenure. Secretary
Gloria contends that the decision of the Court of Appeals circumvented the doctrine of
presidential immunity from suit.

Issue
WON the CA violated the privilege of the President NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the case was directed against the Secretary not to the
President. The questioned acts are those of the Secretary and not of the President.
Furthermore, presidential decisions may be questioned before the court where there is grave
abuse of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. This
immunity does not cover cabinet members, only the President may invoke the privilege.

Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC

Grace Poe was a foundling, and was registered as such in the Civil Registrat of Iloilo. She was
subsequently adopted by Fernando Poe and Susan Roces. When she was 18 she registered as a
voter in San Juan and she was also able to obtain a Philippines passport. She married Teodoro
Llamanzares and they went to US after the wedding, she was naturalized as an American Citizen
and was able to obtain a US Passport.

In 2004 She went back to the Philippines to support her father’s candidacy and came back to US
after the election. She returned to the Philippines the same year when after learning of her
father’s deteriorating health. She stayed in the Philippines until February of 2005 to arrange the
funeral. She decided to stay in the Philippines to take care of her mother, she and her husband
decided to move back to the Philippines along with their children. They prepared for the
resettlement including notification of their children’s school, coordination with property
movers, and inquiry as to how they can bring their pet dog. Poe secured a TIN in the Philippines
and after the disposal of all their belongings in the US, they bought a property in the
Philippines. She took her Oath of Allegiance in July 2006 and was able to reacquire her Filipino
citizenship. She served as the chairperson of MTRCB. In 2012 she filed her COC for Senator
stating that she was a resident of the Philippines for 6 years 6 months, she won. In 2015 she
filed her COC for Presidential election, she declared that she is a natural born and has been a
residence for 10 years 11 months.

Petitions were filed against Poe alleging that she misrepresented in her COC when she stated
that she is a resident for 10 years 11 months and that she is not a natural born Filipino,
considering Poe is a foundling.

Issue
WON Grace Poe has the qualification to run as a President YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that Poe’s biological parents are presumed to be Filipinos, the
burden of proof that her parents are aliens is the responsibility of the one claiming it. There is a
99% chance that a foundling’s parent is Filipino according to statistic. Other circumstantial
evidence are
1. She was abandoned in a catholic church
2. She has typical Filipino Features
The Court stated that a foundling is a natural born Filipino. The Constitution did not specifically
mention them as there was not enough of them to merit specific mention. The contention that
“Having to perform an act” means that the act must be personally done by the citizen, in this
case determination of foundling status was done by authorities, not by Poe. Under international
law, foundlings are citizens. The UDHR, Convention on the Rights of the Child and ICCPR
obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from birth to ensure that no child is stateless.
Hague Convention and Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness presumes that a foundling
acquires the nationality of the country where they are found.

Pimentel v. Joint Committee

Petitioner Senator Aquilino Pimenntel seeks to nullify the Joint Committee of Congress that was
made to determine the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvas for Presidential
and Vice-Presidential candidates, following the adjournment of Congress. He argues that upon
adjournment of the 12th Congress, all pending matters and proceedings terminate upon the
expiration of the Congress.
Issue
WON the Joint Committee is valid YES
Ratio
Under the Rules of Senate, the Senate shall convene in joint session during any voluntary or
involuntary recess to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President. The 12 th Congress did
not terminate upon the adjournment of the regular session, it only terminates upon the start of
the regular session of the 13th Congress. The legislative function sof the 12th Congress may have
terminated upon the final adjournment of its regular session but this does not affect its non-
legislative functions.

Lopez v. Senate
This petition seeks to nullify the creation of a Joint Committee which shall preliminarily canvass
the votes of the candidates for President and Vice-President. Petitioner argue that the
Committee deprives other members of the Congress to canvass the votes.

Issue
WON the Congress can create a Joint Committee for the canvassing of votes YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that Sec. 4 Art. 7 of the Constitution expressly empowers the
Congress to promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Court ruled that they
do not have the power to judge internal rules enacted by the Congress. Furthermore, the
creation of the Joint Committee is not a derogation of the prerogative of other members of the
Congress as the decision of the Committee is still under the approval of the Congress, voting
separately.

Tecson v. Lim
Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of COMELEC In taking cognizance of the case instead of
the Supreme Court regarding the election protest thrown at Roland Poe or Fernando Poe Jr.,
not satisfying the natural born citizen requirement of presidential candidates for the 2004
elections. Tecson et al states the governing provision is Art. 7 Sec. 4 (7) of the constitution
which states that the SC en Banc shall be the sole judge in election, returns and qualifications of
Presidents.

Issue
Whether the court has jurisdiction? NO
Ratio
The case at bar is not an election contest and thus not under the jurisdiction of the courts.
CONTEST is in reference to a post-election scenario. Meaning the contest should be done within
30 days after the proclamation of the winning president or vice-president. That the contest is
questioned by the candidate for the same position receiving the SECOND OR THIRD HIGHEST
NUMBER OF VOTES. Thus the case at bar is not under the jurisdiction of the court since
Fernando Poe is only a candidate.

Macalintal v. PET

Petitoner argued that the separate tribunal is in violation of the duty of the Supreme Court as
the sole judge of all contest relation to election, returns and qualification of the President and
Vice-President. He added that the designation of Members of the Court as chairman and
members of the tribunal is in violation of the constitutional mandate that members of the
Supreme Court cannot be designated to any quasi-judicial function.

Issue
WON the PET is constitutional YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that Section 4 Art 4 of the Constitution should be read with other
related provisions of the Constitution such as that parallel provisions on the Electoral Tribunal
for Senate and House of the Representatives. The PET can establish and promulgate its own
rules because it is a body distinct and independent from the House and the CA. It is an
independent institution within the judiciary, it is not separate. The power to adjudicate
controversies between two parties is judicial function, including electoral protest.

Estrada v. Desierto

Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board

Petitioner imports raw materials exempted from duty and also exports materials exempted frm
duty. R.A. 3137 was enacted creating an embroidery and apparel inspection and control board.
Upon Recommendation by the Philippine Association of Embroidery and Apparel Exporters, the
Department of Finance Secretary was named as the representative of the private sector.
Petitioner argued that R.A. 3137 is unconstitutional as it deprives the President of his
prerogative to appoint whomever he desires because the law specifies the office where the
board should come from.

Issue
WON Sec. 2 of R.A. 3137 is unconstitutional NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the chairman and members of the Board need to be designated
by the respective department heads. With the exception of the representative of the private
sector, they seat as ex-officio. Meaning, those who are already appointed before in their
respective offices need not be appointed again as members. The duties of the representatives
designated to the ex-officio position are just extended.

CLU v. Executive Secretary

Petitioners seeks to declare E.O. No 284 as unconstitutional as it provides that cabinet

members, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the Executive
Department may in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the
government and government corporations. In the case that the executive official hold more
than what is mentioned, he shall forfeit his position in favor of the lower position. Also 1/3 if
members of boards of GOCCs should be a secretary or undersecretary or assistant secretary.

Petitioner argued that the E.O is unconstitutional as it allows members of the Cabiner,
undersecretary and assistant secretaries to hold other governmental office, in violation of Sec
13 Art 7 of the Constitution. Petitioner added that the phrase “ Unless otherwise provided by
the Constitution” pertains to the case where the Vice President is appointed as a Cabinet
member and the Secretary of Justice is appointed as a member of the JBC.

Issue
WON the E.O is unconstitutional YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the phrase “Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution” in
Sec 13 Article VII does not refer to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7 Article I-XB.
To construe otherwise would render nugatory and meaningless the intent of the framer to
impose a stricter prohibition on the President, VP, cabinet members, deputies and assistants
with respect to holding other offices or employments. However this provision does not apply to
positions in ex-officio capacity. This position refers to acting in behalf of the office, meaning it is
just an extension of the functions of that office.
Ex.

Secretary of Finance and Budget sitting as member of Monetary Board

Secretary of Transporation and Communication acting as Chairman of the Maritime Industry
Authority and Civil Aeronautics Board

If the function required are merely incidental, remotely related, inconsistent, incompatible, or
otherwise alien to the primary function of the cabinet member it is included in the prohibition
of the Constitution.

Dela Cruz v. COA

The resident auditor of NHA issued a notice of disallowance, disallowing in audit the payment
of representation allowances and per diems of Cabinet members who were the ex-oficio
members of NHA Board of Directors and their respective alternates who actually received
payments. The total payment disbursed is P276,000. Petitioners assail the disallowance but the
COA denied the petition. This decision was in line with the decision of the Supreme Court
declaring EO 284 as unconstitutional with regards to receipt of compensation of ex-oficio
members.

Issue
Won the petitioners are entitled to compensation NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the argument of the petitioners that they are representatives
and that they are not covered by the prohibition is untenable. The Court stated that the agent
can never be larger than the principal, if the principal is absolutely prohibited from receiving
remuneration from NHA or any government agency for that matter, so must the agent be.

Bitonio v COA

R.A. 7916 created the Philippine Economic Zone Authority. Its members shall be composed of
the Director General as ex-oficio chairman and 8 members who are secretaries or their
representatives of the Department. According to the charter, these members shall receive a per
diem of not less than the amount equivalent to the representation and transportation
allowances of the members. After the audit of PEZA, the COA disallowed the payment of per
diems to the petition.

Petitioner argued that R.A. 7916 was enacted 4 years after the promulgation of Civil Liberty
Union case, therefore, the Congress was fully aware of the decision of the court in enacting the
law.

Issue
WON petitioner is entitled to compensation NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the presence of petitioner in th PEZA Board is solely by virtue of
his capacity as representative of the Secretary of Labor. There was no separate or special
appointment for such position. Since the Secretary of Labor is already receiveing compensation
from his office, he is not entitled to addition compensation for being in the PEZA. Furthermore,
the law was already amended by the Congress upon realizing the flaw in the previous law.

National Amnesty Commission v. COA

The National Amnesty Commission was tasked ro receive, process, and review amnesty
applications. Its composed of 7 member, The Chairperson, three regular members appointed by
the President, and the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense and Interior and Local
Government as ex officio members. After attending the meeting of NAC members,
representatives were paid honoraria. NAC issued an Administrative Order stating that ex officio
members shall receive per diems, allowances, bonuses and other benefits.

Issue
WON ex officio members are entitled to compensation NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that there is no legal basis for the grant of any additional
compensation. COA’s memorandum was based on the Civil Liberty Union case. Ex officio
members are not entitled to compensation.