STRATEGIC LECTURE IN POLITICAL
Constitution?
LAW
JUDGE GENER M. GITO, LL.M., D.C.L.
AMENDMENT AND REVISION
Who may propose changes to the Constitution?
• Congress, upon a vote of three-fourth of its
members (Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII).
• A constitutional convention (Sec. 1(2), Art.
XVII)
• People through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number
of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein
(Sec. 2, Art. XVII).
What are the two ways by which the Constitution
may be changed?
• Amendment
• Revision
Revision vs. Amendment
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution. There is also revision if
the change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution.
Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principle involved. Revision generally affects several
provisions of the constitution, while amendment
generally affects only the specific provision being
amended (Lambino vs. COMELEC, October 25, 2006).
Tests to Determine the Kind of Change
Quantitative test
• It inquires into the number of provision
altered, deleted or changed.
Qualitative test
• It inquires into the qualitative effect of the
proposed changed.
May people’s initiative be used to revise the
• No. People’s initiative cannot be sued to revise the
Constitution. The rationale for the answer lies in
the constitutional text.
• Section 1, Article XVII provides that amendment
or revision may be proposed by Congress and
Constitutional Convention.
• While Section 2 provides that amendment may
likewise be proposed by the people.
NATIONAL TERRITORY
Is the definition of national territory under our
Constitution internationally binding?
• No. The definition of the Philippine territory under
the 1987 Constitution is not binding
internationally. It should be noted that a
constitution is a municipal law. Being such, it only
binds the nation promulgating it. Thus, for it to be
binding internationally, the extent of national
territory under the 1987 Constitution must be
supported by proofs which are acceptable under
international law.
What is an archipelago?
• An archipelago is a body of water studded with
islands.
• Under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNLCOS III), archipelago is defined as
“a group of islands, including parts of islands,
interconnecting waters and other natural features
which are so closely interrelated that such islands,
waters and other natural features form an
intrinsic geographical, economic and political
entity, or which historically have been regarded as
such” (Art. 46[b]).
What is an archipelagic state?
• Archipelagic state means a State constituted
wholly by one or more archipelagos and may
include other islands (Art. 46[a], UNCLOS III).
 • What is archipelagic doctrine?
• Archipelagic doctrine prescribes a principle that
archipelago should be considered one integrated
unit instead of being divided into several islands.
This can be effected by connecting the outermost
point of the outermost island of the archipelago
with a straight baseline and all the waters inside
the baseline shall be considered internal waters.
Is archipelagic doctrine reflected in the definition
of territory under Article I?
Magallona vs. Ermita, (August 16, 2011)
• Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA
9522 on two grounds:
(a) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime
territory, and logically, the reach of the
Philippine state’s sovereign power, in
violation of Article 1 of the 1987
Constitution, embodying the terms of the
Treaty of Paris and ancillary treaties, and

• Yes. Article I reflects the archipelagic doctrine. The
last sentence of Article I provided that “[T]he
waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal
waters of the Philippines.”
Is archipelagic doctrine binding under
international law?
(b) RA 9522’s adaptation of UNCLOS “regime
of islands” to determine maritime zones
of Kalayaan Group of Island and
Scarborough shoal is inconsistent with
its claim of sovereignty over these areas
thus violating Article I of the
Constitution.

• NO. archipelagic doctrine is not yet accepted

under international law. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)
does not treat the waters inside the baseline as
internal waters. UNCLOS III treats them as
“archipelagic waters.”

What is the difference between internal water

and archipelagic water?

• When a water is considered internal, it subject to

the plenary jurisdiction of the state over which it
has sovereignty and jurisdiction. Such state can
disallow the passage of foreign vessels. Such
vessels may only be allowed passage upon the
consent of the controlling state.

• Archipelagic water are those waters inside the

archipelagic baselines drawn joining the
outermost points of the outermost island of the
archipelago. Under UNCLOS III, the archipelagic
state has sovereignty over archipelagic water. The
sovereignty extends to air space, as well as to its
sea bed and subsoil and resources contained
therein. However, unlike internal water,
archipelagic water is subject to the right of
innocent passage, which right is provided by
Article 52 of the UNCLOS III.

First Issue
• Baselines laws are nothing but statutory
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to
delimit with precision the extent of their
maritime zones and continental shelves.
• In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the
international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which
States parties exercise treaty-based rights,
namely, the exercise of sovereignty over
territorial waters (Article 2, UNCLOS III), the
jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal,
immigration, and sanitation laws in the
contiguous zone (Article 33, UNLCOS III), and the
right to exploit the living and non-living resources
in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56,
UNCLOS III) and continental shelf (Article 77,
UNCLOS III)
Second Issue
• The Baseline Law, by adopting UNCLOS “regime of
islands” does not dismember Kalayaan group of
islands and Scarborough shoal from the national
territory. The Philippine sovereignty and
jurisdiction were not diminished by the Baseline
Law.
• Under UNCLOS, archipelagic state has the right to
draw baselines but "[t]he drawing of such
baselines shall not depart to any appreciable
extent from the general configuration of the
archipelago" (Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III).
• Kalayaan Group of Islands are located at an
appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of
the Philippine archipelago.
What are the maritime zones?
Territorial sea - It is a sea, the breadth of which does
not exceed 12 nautical miles from the baseline (Art. 3,
UNCLOS III).
Contiguous zone - It is a sea, the breadth of which
does not exceed 24 nautical miles from the baseline
(Art. 33[2], UNCLOS III).
Exclusive Economic Zone - It is a sea, the breadth of
which does not exceed 200 nautical miles
from the baseline (Art. 57, UNCLOS III). •
Continental Shelf - The continental shelf of a coastal
State comprises the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial
sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land
territory to the outer edge of the continental margin,
or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured where the outer edge of the
continental margin does not extend up to that
distance (Art. 76[1], UNCLOS III).
Rights of Coastal States to Maritime Zones
Territorial sea
• The coastal state has sovereignty over the
territorial sea subject to this Convention and to
other rules of international law (Art. 2, UNCLOS
III).
Contiguous zone
The coastal state has the right to exercise control
necessary to
(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
within its territory or territorial sea; and,
(b) punish infringement of the above laws and
regulations committed within its territory or
territorial sea (Art. 33, UNCLOS III).
Exclusive economic zone
• The coastal state has the sovereign rights for the
purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving
and managing the natural resources. It has also
jurisdiction over the establishment and use of
artificial islands, installations and structures;
marine scientific research; and, the protection and
preservation of the marine environment (Art. 56,
UNCLOS III)
Continental shelf
• The coastal state has the exclusive right to explore
and exploit its natural resources (Art. 77, UNCLOS
III).
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
Constitutional Basis
• “The State may not be sued without its consent.”
Article XVI, Section 3
Immunity covers other States
• Immunity is enjoyed by other States in accordance
with the international law principle “par in parem
non habet imperium.”
Immunity also covers the following:
• State diplomatic agents
• Foreign agent, as long as it can be established that
he is acting within the directives of the sending
State
• United Nations, as well as its organs and
specialized agencies
• International organizations or agencies
Suit Against the Officer of the Government
• It is important to determine if the State is the real
party in interest, that the claim if proved will be
the direct liability of the State and not merely the
officer impleaded.
• The test is whether, assuming the decision is
rendered against the public officer impleaded, the
enforcement thereof will require an affirmative
act of the State.
Exception when public officer may be sued even
without prior consent
• To compel him to do an act required by law
• To restrain him from performing an illegal act
• To compel payment of damages from an already
appropriated assurance fund or to refund tax over
payments
• To secure judgment that the officer may satisfy
himself without the state having to a positive act.
• Where the government itself violated a law
because the State cannot be an instrument of
injustice.
Waiver of Immunity
• The State may be sued with its consent.
• There are forms of consent:
• Express - May be manifested either by
general or special law
• Implied - When it commences litigation or
enters into a contract
Express Consent
• Laws giving consent to be sued
 Act no. 3088
 C.A. No. 327 as amended by P.D. No. 1445
 Charters of municipal corporations
Implied Consent
• When the state commences litigation
• When the state enters into business contract. BUT:
 Where the contract is in pursuit of a
sovereign activity, there is no waiver of
immunity, and no implied consent may be
derived therefrom.
 But when the State enters into a contract, it
is not automatic that it already waives its
immunity. It must be distinguished in what
capacity the government is entering into
contract. Is it jus imperii or jus gestationis
Suit against Government Agencies
• Determination must be made whether an agency
is:
incorporated
• Suability is found in the charter
unincorporated
• If unincorporated, inquire into the
principal function of the agency. If
governmental, no waiver. If proprietary,
there is waiver
Scope of Consent
• Consent to be sued does not include consent to the
execution of judgment against it.
• But the funds belonging to government
owned and controlled corporation are not
exempt from garnishment.
• However, the funds of LGU may not be garnished.
It requires appropriation through ordinance. But,
mandamus may lie.
Important Cases
• Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 – payment of
just compensation. The doctrine cannot be used to
perpetrate injustice.
• Santiago vs. Republic, 87 SCRA 294 – in
revocation of deed of donation, consent is not
required. Neither notice to COA is required
because it is not money claim.
• Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 – consent to be
used does not cover consent to pay.
• UP vs. Dizon, 679 SCRA 54 – the funds of UP
cannot be garnished because it is governmental.
• Lockheed Detective vs. UP, 670 SCRA 206 – can
be garnished, but file the claim first with COA.
• US vs. Ruiz, 221 Phil. 179 – the fact the
government enters into contract would not be
taken to mean that it waives it immunity. Inquiry
must be had into what capacity the government
enters into contract.
• China National Machinery vs. Sta. Maria, 665
SCRA 189
• German Agency for Technical Cooperation vs.
CA, 585 SCRA 150 – the claim of immunity by
foreign government agency must be substantiated
by evidence.
• Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 –
certification by DFA that an entity is immune from
suit must be respected by the Court.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
What is the constitutional basis of the principle of
separation of powers?
• The constitutional basis of the principle of
separation of powers is the allocation of powers
by the Constitution to the three great departments
of the government and Constitutional
Commission. Thus, these three departments must
discharge their respective functions within the
 limits of authority conferred by the Constitution
(Philippine Coconut Producers Federation vs.
Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, September 17,
2009).
When is there is violation of principle of
separation of power?
• The principle of separation of powers may be
violated in two (2) ways: firstly, "[o]ne branch
may interfere impermissibly with the other's
performance of its constitutionally assigned
function"; and "alternatively, the doctrine may be
violated when one branch assumes a function that
more properly is entrusted to another." In other
words, there is a violation of the principle when
there is impermissible (a) interference with
and/or (b) assumption of another department's
functions (Belgica vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566,
November 19, 2013).
Jurisprudential Illustrations
• Flores vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 104732, June 22,
1993
• Santiago vs. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, 18
November 1998
• Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255,
August 14, 1997
• Abakada Guru Party-list vs. Purisima, G.R. No.
166715, August 14, 2008
Abakada vs. Purisima, GR 166715, August 14,
2008
• SEC. 12. Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee. – There is hereby created a Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee composed of
seven Members from the Senate and seven
Members from the House of Representatives. The
Members from the Senate shall be appointed by
the Senate President, with at least two senators
representing the minority. The Members from the
House of Representatives shall be appointed by
the Speaker with at least two members
representing the minority. After the Oversight
Committee will have approved the implementing
rules and regulations (IRR) it shall thereafter
become functus officio and therefore cease to
exist.
• From the moment the law becomes effective, any
provision of law that empowers Congress or any
of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law
violates the principle of separation of powers and
is thus unconstitutional. Under this principle, a
provision that requires Congress or its members
to approve the implementing rules of a law after it
has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional,
as is a provision that allows Congress or its
members to overturn any directive or ruling made
by the members of the executive branch charged
with the implementation of the law.
What is legislative veto?
• Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring
the President or an administrative agency to
present the proposed implementing rules and
regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or
through a committee formed by it, retains a "right"
or "power" to approve or disapprove such
regulations before they take effect (Abakada Guru
Party-list vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14,
2008).
Is legislative veto constitutional?
• No. Legislative veto is unconstitutional. Legislative
veto violates the principle of separation of powers.
From the moment the law becomes effective, any
provision of law that empowers Congress or any
of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law
violates the principle of separation of powers and
is thus unconstitutional (Abakada Guru Party-list
vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008).
What is a pork barrel system?
• Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules
and practices that govern the manner by which
lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily
intended for local projects, are utilized through
the respective participations of the Legislative and
Executive branches of government, including its
members. (Belgica vs. Executive Secretary,
November 19, 2013).
Two kinds of pork barrel system
• Congressional Pork Barrel
• Presidential pork barrel system
Congressional Pork Barrel
• Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, November 19, 2013
• It is defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary
fund wherein legislators, either individually or
collectively organized into committees, are able to
effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s
utilization through various post-enactment
measures and/or practices.
Presidential Pork Barrel
• Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, November 19, 2013
• It is defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary
fund which allows the President to determine the
manner of its utilization.
Does “pork barrel system” violate the principle of
separation of powers?
• YES. The “pork barrel system” violates the
principle of separation of powers. The
distinguishing factor of a pork barrel system,
especially “Congressional Pork Barrel” is the
authority of the legislator to participate in the
post-enactment phases of project implementation.
• (Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, November 19,
2013)
• These post-enactment measures which govern the
areas of project identification, fund release and
fund realignment are not related to functions of
congressional oversight and, hence, allow
legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that
properly belong to the sphere of budget execution.
• (Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, November 19,
2013)
Problem No. 1
• Supposing Congressman Manhikmanaog of the 1st
district of Oriental Mindoro, during the budget
deliberation in Congress allocated a total of 70M
worth of projects in his district. All congressmen
followed suit. Each of them allocated 70M worth of
project to their respective districts. Because
senators would not want to be left out, each of
them identified projects worth 200M. They were
approved and they were all carried out in the GAA
which was eventually passed and approved. Are
the actions of the legislators as reflected in the
GAA constitutional?
Answer
• The action of the legislators as reflected in the GAA
is not unconstitutional.
• What is prohibited under the Constitution is the
participation of the legislators in the post-
enactment phases of project implementation. This
is proscribed because it violates the constitutional
principle of separation of powers. However, when
project identification is done during congressional
budget deliberation, the same will not violate
separation of powers. The project identification
happened while Congress is performing its very
function, which is legislation.
How does DAP violate separation of powers?
• The act of the President of allotting or redirecting
funds for certain programs, activities or projects
well beyond to what Congress had intended,
arrogate unto himself a power that belongs to
Congress. While the president is authorized to
spend in line with his mandate to execute the laws
(including the GAA’s), such authority should not
translate to unfettered discretion that allows him
to substitute his own will for that of Congress.
(Araullo vs. Aquino III, 728 SCRA 1)
DELEGATION OF POWERS
What is the basis of non-delegation of power?
• It is based upon the ethical principle that such
delegated power constitutes not only a right but a
duty to be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not
through the intervening mind of another (U.S. vs.
Barrias, 11 Phil. 327, 330). A further delegation of
such power, unless permitted by the sovereign
power, would constitute a negation of this duty in
violation of the trust reposed in the delegate
 mandated to discharge it directly (Cruz & Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, 2014, at page. 160).
Problem No.1
• Section 17, Article XII provides that “in times of
national emergency, when the public interest so
requires, the State may, during the emergency and
under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation of
any privately owned public utility or business
affected with public interest.” Can this provision
be legally invoked by the President to temporarily
take over or direct the operation of any privately
owned public utility or business affected with
public interest during without authority from
Congress?
Answer
power essentially legislative (Eastern
Shipping Lines vs. POEA, 166 SCRA 533, 543-
544).
Problem No. 2
• Section 8 of PD 910 (Law governing the
disposition of Malampaya Funds) pertinently
provides:
 “All fees, revenues and receipts of the Board x
x x shall form part of a Special Fund to be used
to finance energy resource development and
exploitation programs and projects of the
government and for such other purposes as
may be hereafter directed by the President.”
Answer

• No. Without legislation, the President has not

 The provision is invalid as it constitute an undue
power to take over privately-owned public utility
delegation of legislative power. The phrase "and
of business affected with public interest. In short,
for such other purposes as may be hereafter
the President has no absolute authority to exercise
directed by the President" under Section 8 of PD
all the power of the State under Section 17, Article
910 constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
XII in the absence of an emergency powers act
power insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient
passed by Congress (David vs. Arroyo, 489 SCRA
standard to adequately determine the limits of the
161).
President's authority with respect to the purpose
for which the Malampaya Funds may be used.
Tests for Valid Delegation
(Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, November 19,
2013).
• Completeness test

• The law must be complete in all its essential LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

terms when it leaves the legislature so that
there will be nothing left for the delegate to do Legislative Power
when it reaches him except to enforce it. A law
is complete when it sets forth therein the policy • It is the authority to make laws, alter and repeal.
to be executed, carried out or implemented by
the delegate (Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 122 Who may exercise legislative power?
Phil. 965).
• The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of
• Sufficient standard test
the Senate and a House of Representatives, except
to the extent reserved to the people by the
• A sufficient standard is intended to map out provision on initiative and referendum. (Section 1,
the boundaries of the delegate’s authority by Article VI)
defining the legislative policy and indicating
the circumstances under which it is to be
pursued. The purpose of sufficient standard
is to prevent a total transference of
legislative power from law making body to
the delegate, who is not allowed to step into
the shoes of the legislature and exercise a
 THE SENATE
Article VI, Section 2
The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Qualifications of the Senate
• Article VI, Section 3
• No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of
the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able
to read and write, a registered voter, and a
resident of the Philippines for not less than two
years immediately preceding the day of the
election.
Qualifications of a Senator
Article VI, Section 3
 Natural-born citizen
 Least thirty-five years of age on the day of
election
 Able to read and write
 Registered voter
 Resident of the Philippines for not less than
two years immediately preceding the day of
the election.
Who is a natural born citizen?
• Article IV, Section 2
 Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship.
 Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural- born citizens.
Social Justice Society vs. DDB, November 3, 2008
• Section 36 (g) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002):
• All candidates for public office whether appointed
or elected both in the national or local government
shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
• (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6486:
• SECTION 1. Coverage.—All candidates for public
office, both national and local, in the May 10, 2004
Synchronized National and Local Elections shall
undergo mandatory drug test in government
forensic laboratories or any drug testing
laboratories monitored and accredited by the
Department of Health.
• SC declared Section 36(g) and Section 1 of
Comelec Resolution No. 6486 unconstitutional as
it adds the constitutional qualification for senator
which is fixed by the constitution.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Article VI, Section 5 (1)
The House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
District representative
• Shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
Party list representative
• Shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
or organizations.

• The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party
list.
Apportionment of Legislative District
• Constitutional underpinnings:
 Legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila
area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio (Section 5(1),
Article VI).
 Each legislative districts shall comprise, as far
as practicable, contiguous, compact and
adjacent territory (Sec. 5(2), Article VI). o Each
city with a population of at least 250,000 or
each province shall have at least one
representative (Sec. 5(3), Article VI).
“Gerrymandering”
• The formation of one district legislative district
out of separate territories for the purpose of
benefiting a candidate or a party.
• This is unconstitutional because of the
constitutional requirement that each legislative
district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.
Projections
• Cases for 2019 Bar
 Bagabuyo vs. Comelec, G.R. 176970, Dec. 8,
2008
 Aquino III vs. Comelec, G.R. 189793, April 7,
2010
 Aldaba vs. Comelec, G.R. 1880778, Jan. 25,
2010
 Sema vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 177597, July 18,
2008
Party-list Representatives
• The house of Representatives is composed not
only of the regular district representatives but
also of the party-list representatives. The party-
list representatives shall constitute 20% of the
total membership of the body, including such
representatives
How is the number of party-list representatives
computed?
No. of Seats of available
District Reps. x .20 = No. of PLR
.80
• For every four (4) district representatives,
there must be one (1) party list
representative
• BANAT VS COMELEC
Who may participate in party-list election?
• Three different groups may participate in the
party-list system:
 National parties and organizations
 Regional parties or organizations
 Sectoral parties and organizations
 Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec, April 2, 2013
Is it required the parties or organization be
organized along sectoral lines or be marginalized
and underrepresented?
• National parties or organizations and
regional parties or organizations do not need
to organize along sectoral lines and do not
need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
• Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec, April 2, 2013
May a political party participate in party-list
election?
• Political parties can participate in party-list
elections provided they register under the
party-list system and do not field candidates
in legislative district elections.
• Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec, April 2, 2013
Can a political party which field candidate in
district election participate in party-list election?
• It can participate in party-list election, only
through its sectoral wing that can separately
register under the party-list system. The sectoral
wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
and is link to a political party.
• Atong Paglaum vs. Comelec, April 2, 2013
Parliamentary Immunity
Section 11, Article VI
• A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session. No Member
shall be questioned nor be held liable in any
other place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any committee thereof.
Parliamentary Immunities
• Privilege from Arrest
• Privilege from Speech and Debate
Illustrative Case
• Pobre vs. Santiago, 597 SCRA 1, J. Velasco.
• The Court is not hesitant to impose some
form of disciplinary sanctions on
Senator/Atty. Santiago for what otherwise
would have constituted an act of utter
disrespect on her part towards the Court and
its members. The factual and legal
circumstances of this case, however, deter the
Court from doing so, even without any sign of
remorse from her. Basic constitutional
consideration dictates this kind of
disposition.
Forbidden Office
• No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be
appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
Problem No. 3
• Congressman Abaya, the Chair of the
Committee on Transportation in the 16th
Congress, authored bill creating a
Department of Transportation (DOTr). The
bill was approved and eventually signed by
the President into law.
May Congressman Abaya be appointed as Cabinet
Secretary of the newly created DOTr.?
Answer
• No. Congressman Abaya cannot be appointed as
Secretary of DOTr. The last sentence of Section 13,
Article VI provides that no member of Congress may
be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased during
the term for which he was elected.
Electoral Tribunals
• Section 17, Article VI
 The Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members,
three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be
Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and
the parties or organizations registered under
the party-list system represented therein.
The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.
Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals
• The sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
When does the jurisdiction of the Comelec over
the candidates for House end and when does the
jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal begins?
Reyes vs. Comelec, June 25, 2013
• The jurisdiction of an Electoral Tribunal begins
once a winning candidate has been:
 Proclaimed
 Taken his oath
 Assumed office
May Comelec entertain petition for
disqualification of candidate for Representative,
Senator and President?
• No. There is absence of an authorized
proceeding for determining before election
the qualifications of candidate for
Representative, Senator and President.
• To disqualify a candidate, there must be a
declaration by a final judgment of a
competent court that the candidate sought to
be disqualified "is guilty of or found by the
Commission to be suffering from any
disqualification provided by law or the
Constitution."
• (Poe vs. Comelec, March 8, 2016)
POWERS OF CONGRESS
Abas Kida vs. Senate, October 18, 2011
• Congress provided that a law it had passed may
re-amended or revised by the Congress of the
Philippines upon the vote of two thirds (2/3) of
the members of the House of Representatives
and the Senate.
• The SC declared this unconstitutional for
Congress cannot pass an irrepealable laws. SC
said “where the legislature by its own act,
attempts to limits its power to amend or repeals
laws, the Court has the duty to strike down such
act for interfering with the plenary powers of
Congress.”
Classification of Powers of the Congress
1. Legislative(P-E-T-A-L-O)
 General Plenary power
 Expropriation
 Taxation
 Appropriation
 Legislative investigations
 Oversight Function
2. Non-Legislative(C-D-C-P-I)
 Canvassing of presidential elections
 Declaration of existence of a state of war
 Giving Concurrence to treaties and amnesties
 Power to Propose amendments
 Power to Impeach
Limitations of Legislative Power
• Substantive
 It curtails the contents of the law. It may
express or implied.
 Art. III (Bill of Rights)
 Art. VI, Secs. 25 & 29
 Art. VI, Secs. 28, 29
 Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)
 Art. VI, Sec. 30
 Art. VI, Sec. 31
 Non-delegation
 Irrepealable laws
•Procedural
 It pertains to the manner of passing laws.
 Art.VI, Section 26:
 One subject, One title
 Three readings on separate day.
Procedure for the Approval of the Bill
1) A bill introduced by any member of the House or
the Senate Non- Legislative.
2) The first reading which involves the reading of the
number and title of the bill and the referral of the
bill to the appropriate committee.
3) The may be killed in the committee or it may be
recommended for approval with or without
amendments. If there are other bills of similar
nature, the will be consolidated under a common
authorship or committee bill.
4) Once reported out, the bill shall be calendared for
second reading. It is at this stage that the bill is
read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon and
amended when desired.
5) The bill as approved on the second reading is
printed in its final form and copies thereof are
distributed at least three days before the third
reading. On the third reading, the bill will be
approved or disapproved. No debate is allowed.
6) Once the bill passes third reading, it is sent to the
other chamber, where it will also undergo three
readings. If there are differences between the
version of the two chambers, a bicameral
conference committee will draft the compromise
version that if ratified by the Senate and House,
will then be submitted to the President.
• A bill is introduced
• First Reading
• Committee Action
• Committee Report
• Second Reading
• Third Reading
• Transmission
• Bi-Cam Conference
• Submission to President
Procedural Aspect of Legislation
• Only one subject to be expressed in the title of
the bill (Sec. 26[1], Art. VI)
• Three (3) reading on separate days and
printed copies thereof are distributed to all
its members before its passage (Sec. 26[2],
Art. VI)
• Except when the President certifies its
immediate enactment to meet
public calamity or emergency (id.,)
• Upon the third reading, no amendment is
allowed. (id.)
Issues in the Procedural Aspect of Legislation
• One subject embraced in the title of the law
• Title is not required to be an index of the
contents of the bill. It is sufficient compliance
if the title expresses the general subject, and
all the provisions are germane to that subject.
(Philconsa vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 479; Lidasan
vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 496)
• The reason for certifying the urgent passage
of the law cannot be inquired by the SC
(Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
Bills which should originate from the House
Appropriations bills – the primary purpose of which
is to authorize the release of funds from the treasury
Revenue bills – primary and specific purpose is to
raise revenue
Tariff bills – specifies rate and duties on imported
articles
Bills Increasing public debts – floating bonds for
public subscription redeemable after a certain period
of time
Approval of the Bills (Section 27, Article VI)
How does a bill become a law?
• When the president signs it.
• When the president vetoes it, but the veto
was overridden by two thirds of all the
members of the House.
• When the president does not act upon it
within thirty days after it shall have been
presented to him
May the President approve some part or parts of
the bill and veto the rest?
As a general rule, if the President disapproves a bill
approved by Congress, he should veto the entire bill.
He is not allowed to veto separate items of a bill. It is
only in the case of appropriation, revenue, and tariff
bills that he is authorized to exercise item veto.
Item Veto
• Section 27 (2)
The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue,
or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or
items to which he does not object.
What an item?
 Item in “an indivisible some of money dedicated to
stated “purpose” and not some general provision
of law which happens to be put in an
appropriation bill.
 The power to disapprove any item or items in an
appropriate bill does not grant the authority to
veto a part of an item and to approve the
remaining portion of the same item. (Gonzales v.
Macaraig, Jr., 191 SCRA 452, 464 [1990])
Appropriation, Defined
• An appropriation measure may be defined as a
statute the primary and specific purpose of
which is to authorize the release of public funds
from the treasury.
• A law creating an office and providing funds
therefore is not an appropriation law since the
main purpose is not to appropriate funds but to
create the office.
Classification of Appropriation
General
 It is passed annually is intended to provide
for the financial operations of the entire
government during one fiscal period.
Special
 It is designed for a specific purpose such as
the creation of a fund for the relief of typhoon
victims.
Limitations on Appropriation
IMPLIED
 Appropriation must be devoted to a public
purpose
 The sum authorized must be determinate or at
least determinable
Constitutional Limitations
• Sec. 24, Art. VI
 All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of
local application, and private bills, shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.
• Sec. 25(1), Art. VI
 Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President for
the operation of the Government as specified in
the budget. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by
law.
• Section 25(2), Art VI
 No provision or enactment shall be embraced in
the general appropriations bill unless it relates
specifically to some particular appropriation
therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation to
which it relates.
• Sec. 25(3), Art. VI
 The procedure in approving appropriations for
the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments
and agencies.
• Section 25(4), Art VI
 A special appropriations bill shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified
by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposal therein.
• Sec. 25(6), Art. VI
 Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public
purposes to be supported by appropriate
vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
• Section 29(2), Art VI
 No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any
sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution,
or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as
such, except when such priest, preacher, minister,
or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to
any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
Aglipay vs. Ruiz:
• The Philippine Government authorized a special
stamp issue on the occasion of the observance of
in Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic
Congress under sponsorship of the Catholic
Church. The stamp reflects a map of the
Philippines under which appeared the Caption
“Seat, 33rd International Eucharistic Congress,
Feb. 3-7, 1937”
Automatic Re-appropriation
• Article VI, Section 25(7)
If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall
have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for
the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations
law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-
enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the
general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
DAP Controversy
• Provisions involved:
Section 29(1) - No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
Section 25(5) - No law shall be passed authorizing
any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment
any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
• Araullo vs. Aquino, July 1, 2014
• DAP is a program by which the president
accumulates or gathers the supposed “savings”
from the offices under the office of the president
to create a pool of funds. This pool of funds will be
the source of funds for the priority projects of the
government. This is intended to accelerate
governmental spending.
• The source of funds are the supposed “savings”
which were derived from “unreleased
appropriations” and “unobligated allotment.”
What are “savings” under the law.
I. Funds which are still available after the
completion or final discontinuance or
abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for
which the appropriation is authorized.
II. There can be savings when there is unpaid
compensation and related costs pertaining to
vacant positions.
III. There can be savings from cost-cutting measures
adopted by government agencies.
• Therefore: “Unreleased appropriations and
withdrawn unobligated allotments” are not
savings.
What are the acts considered unconstitutional?
• The pooling of funds from “unreleased
appropriations and withdrawn unobligated
allotments”, being not savings, violates Sec. 25(5)
of Art. VI.
What are the acts considered unconstitutional?
• The transfer of funds from DAP to augment
deficient items not provided in the GAA violates
Sec. 29(1) of Art. VI.
What are the acts considered unconstitutional?
• Cross-border augmentations from savings were
violative of Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI.
Requisites for the valid transfer of appropriated
funds under Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution
(1) There is a law authorizing the transfer funds
within their respective offices;
(2) The funds to be transferred are savings
generated from the appropriations for their
respective offices; and
(3) The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item
in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices.
Legislative Inquiries
Article VI, Section 21.
• The Senate or the House of Representatives or any
of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its
duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
persons appearing in, or affected by, such
inquiries shall be respected.
Question Hour
Article VI, Section 22.
• The heads of departments may upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or
upon the request of either House, as the rules of
each House shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to
their departments. Written questions shall be
submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least
three days before their scheduled appearance.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written
questions, but may cover matters related thereto.
When the security of the State or the public
interest so requires and the President so states in
writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
Sec. 21 vs. Sec. 22
Section 21
• It relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation,
the aims to which is to elicit information that
may used for legislation.
• In the exercise of its power under Sec. 21,
Congress can compel the appearance of
cabinet secretaries.
Section 22
• It pertains to the power to conduct question hour
to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’
oversight function.
• In the exercise of its power under, Sec. 22,
Congress can only request the appearance of the
secretaries of the executive department.
• Senate vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
Who has the power to conduct?
• The Senate or the House of Representatives or any
of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation.
Extent of Power of Inquiry
Sabio vs. Gordon, October 17, 2006
• EO No. 1, Section 4(b) – “no member or staff of the
PCGG shall be required to testify or produce
evidence in any judicial, legislative or
administrative proceedings concerning matters
within its official cognizance.” This is repugnant to
Section 21, Article VI. The provision of law cannot
pose a limitation to this broad power of Congress
in the absence of any constitutional basis.
Senate vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1
• It involves the constitutionality of EO 464
directing certain officials of the government to
secure prior consent from the president before
they appear before in Congress.
• Unconstitutional. It violates Sec. 21, Article VI
• When Congress exercise its power of inquiry in aid
of legislation, heads of department cannot refuse
appearance during the inquiry on the claim that
they have not secured prior president’s consent.

• They can only refuse appearance on a valid claim
of executive privilege. They are not exempt by the
mere fact that they are department heads.
• When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the
only way for department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact
that they are department heads. Only one
executive official may be exempted from this
power — the President on whom executive power
is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress
except through the power of impeachment.
• By the same token, members of the Supreme Court
are also exempt from this power of inquiry. Unlike
the Presidency, judicial power is vested in a
collegial body; hence, each member thereof is
exempt on the basis not only of separation of
powers but also on the fiscal autonomy and the
constitutional independence of the judiciary.
Neri vs. Senate, 549 SCRA 77
• Invocation of presidential communication
privilege would exempt a department head from
answering question from Congress in the latter’s
performance of its power in inquiry.
• Requisites of presidential communication
privilege
• First, communications must relate to
“quintessential and non- delegable power of the
President
• Second, the communications are received by the
President close advisors
• Third, there is no adequate showing of compelling
need that would justify the limitation of the
privilege and of the unavailability of the
information elsewhere.
Limitations of Power
In aid of legislation
 Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon, 203 SCRA
767.
 Standard Charter Bank vs. Senate Committee
on Banks, December 7, 2007.
Duly published rules
 Neri vs. Senate, March 25, 2008.
 Garcillano vs. House of Rep, December 23,
2008.
Rights of persons should be respected
 Sabio vs. Gordon, supra.
 Standard Charter Bank vs. Senate Committee
on Banks, supra.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS
Article VII, Section 4
The returns of every election for President and Vice-
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate.
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and
the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity
and due execution thereof in the manner provided by
law, canvass the votes. The Congress shall
promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the
certificates.
Does Section 18.5 R.A. 9189 (Absentee Voting
Law) empowering the COMELEC to proclaim the
winning candidates for national offices and party
list representatives including the President and
the Vice-President constitutional?
Lopez vs. Senate, June 8, 2004
• Congress may validly delegate the initial
determination of the authenticity and due
execution of the certificate of canvass to a Joint
Congressional Committee. Anyway, the
recommendation of the Joint Congressional
Committee is subject to the approval of Congress.
Macalintal vs. PET, Nov. 23, 2010 incapacitated or failed to
assume.
Sec. 4, Art. VII –
Vacancy that occurs during the term (Section 8)
• “The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, REASON FOR SUCCESSION
returns, and qualifications of the President or VACANCY
Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for When the incumbent The vacancy created is
the purpose.” President dies or is thus permanent. The
permanently disabled, is Vice-President becomes
• Petitioner questions the constitutionality of PET removed or resigned. President
on the ground that the SC, sitting en banc can well When both the President The Senate President or
perform its function as the sole judge of all and the Vice-President the Speaker-in that order
contests relating to the election, qualifications and die, or are permanently shall act as acting
returns of president and vice-president. There is disabled, are removed, or president is elected.
therefore no need for the establishment of PET. resign
When the Acting Congress will determine
• The constitution of PET was in accordance with President dies, or is by law who will acts as
the mandate of Sec. 4, Art. VII. Although the permanently president until a new
method by which the SC exercises this authority is incapacitated or resigned. President or Vice-
not specified in the provision, the grant of power President shall have
does not contain any limitation on SC’s exercise elected and qualified.
thereof.
Section 13, Article VII
• PET is not separate and distinct from the SC, albeit
is has functions peculiar only to tribunal.
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
Vacancy that Occurs at the Start of the Term
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
(Section 7)
any other office or employment during their tenure. x
x x x.
REASON FOR SUCCESSION
VACANCY
Section 7, Article IX-B
Failure to elect President The Vice-President
becomes acting President No elective official shall be eligible for appointment
until a President is or designation in any capacity to any public office or
elected.
position during his tenure.
Failure of the President- The Vice-President
elect to qualify becomes acting President Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
until a President qualifies
functions of his position, no appointive official shall
Death or permanent The Vice-President shall hold any other office or employment in the
disability of the President become the President
Government or any subdivision, agency or
elect
instrumentality thereof, including government-
When both the President The Senate President or
owned or controlled corporations or their
and Vice President shall the Speaker in that order
subsidiaries.
not have been chosen or acts as President until a
failed to qualify or when President or Vice-
Civil Liberties Union vs. ES, Feb. 22, 1991
both shall have died or President qualifies
become incapacitated at
Executive Order No. 284
the start of the term
When both the Senate Congress shall enact a
President shall have died law as who shall become • Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary
or become permanently the actin President. functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet,
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 and receive the
corresponding compensation therefor; Provided,
that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies
or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of
which the President is the Chairman.
• Does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet
members, their deputies or assistants are
concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for
appointive officials in general under Section 7, par.
(2), Article I-XB?
• All other appointive officials in the civil service are
allowed to hold other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when such is
allowed by law or by the primary functions of their
positions. However, members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants may do so only when
expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In
other words, Section 7, Article I-XB is meant to lay
down the general rule applicable to all elective and
appointive public officials and employees, while
Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception
applicable only to the President, the Vice-
President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies
and assistants.
Reiteration of the Rule
• Funa vs. Executive Secretary, February 11, 2010
• Funa vs. Acting Justice Secretary, February 19,
2013
• Public Interest Center vs. Elma, June 30, 2006
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (Article VII)
EXECUTIVE POWER - The power to enforce and
administer the laws. Belongs to the PRESIDENT
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION
• Appointing Power - Article VII, Section 16
• Power of Control - Article VII, Section 17
• Military Power - Article VII, Section 18
• Pardoning Power - Article VII, Section 19
• Borrowing Power - Article VII, Section 20
• Diplomatic Power - Article VII, Section 21
• Budgetary Power - Article VII, Section 22
• Informing Power - Article VII, Section 23
Is the executive power of the president limited to
those specified in the Constitution?
Marcos vs. Manglapus
• Executive power is more than the sum of specific
powers enumerated in the Constitution. It
includes residual powers not specifically
mentioned in the Constitution.
• The Power involved is the President’s residual
power to protect the general welfare of the people.
It is founded on the duty of the president as the
steward of the people.
Power to Appoint
Section 16, Article VII
• The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the:
1) heads of the executive departments,
2) ambassadors,
3) other public ministers and consuls, or
4) officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and
5) other officers whose appointments are vested
in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint
all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for
by law, and those whom he may be authorized
by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law,
vest the appointment of other officers lower in
rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in
 the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards.
Section 16, Article VII
• The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until after
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments
or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
Classification of Appointment in relation to the
Power of C.A.
REGULAR
A regular appointment is one made by the President
while Congress is in session; takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
and once approved, continues until the end of the
term of the appointee.
AD INTERIM
Ad interim appointment is one made by the President
while Congress is in recess; takes effect immediately
until revoked by the Commission on Appointments.
Cases on Presidential Appointment
• Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549
• Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254
• Matibag vs. Benipayo, April 2, 2002
• Pimentel vs. Ermita, October 13, 2005
• Abas Kida vs. Senate, February 28, 2012
• Flores vs. Drilon, June 22, 1993
Section 15, Art. VII
Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make
appointments except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety.
Does Sec. 15, Art. VII apply to appointment in
judiciary?
NO. Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not
apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in the
Supreme Court or to other appointments to the
Judiciary
Power to Remove
Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, September 4,
2012.
• Gonzalez III was removed by the office of the
president on the ground of betrayal of public trust.
It should be noted that under the Ombudsman
Law (RA 6770), the grounds for removing deputy
ombudsman are the same grounds for removing
Ombudsman. These are:
1) culpable violation of the constitution;
2) treason;
3) bribery;
4) graft and corruption;
5) other high crimes;
6) betrayal of public trust.
Would every negligent act or misconduct in the
performance of a Deputy Ombudsman's duties
constitute betrayal of public trust warranting
immediate removal from office?
NO. The Constitutional Commission eventually found
it reasonably acceptable for the phrase betrayal of
public trust to refer to "[a]cts which are just short of
being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness
against public trust, tyrannical abuse of power,
inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross
exercise of discretionary powers." In other words,
acts that should constitute betrayal of public trust as
to warrant removal from office may be less than
criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of
such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds for
impeachment.
Gonzalez vs. Office of the President, January 28, no judgment on theis
2014. matter except to see to
it that the rules are
Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770 vesting disciplinary followed.
authority in the President over the Deputy
Ombudsman violates the independence of the Office Illustrative Cases
of the Ombudsman and is thus unconstitutional. The • Araneta vs. Gatmaitan, 101 Phil 328
same treatment should be given to Special • Lacson-Magallanes Co., vs. Pano, 21 SCRA 895
Prosecutor. • Drilon vs. Lim, August 4, 1994

Power of Control Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

Section 17, Article VII
• The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
• The acts of the secretaries of such departments,
performed and promulgated in the regular course
of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated
by the Chief Executive presumptively, the acts of
the Chief Executive” (Villena v. Sec. of Interior)

Control • Put simply, when a department secretary makes a

• The power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify
or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in
the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Supervision
decision in the course of performing his or her
official duties, the decision, whether honorable or
disgraceful, is presumptively the decision of the
President, unless he quickly and clearly disowns it.
But: doctrine of qualified political agency does
not apply to:

It means overseeing or the power or authority of an • The acts of the cabinet members who are ex-officio
officer to see that subordinate officer performs their members of the Board of Directors of GOCC. Such
duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, then members are not acting are cabinet secretaries
the former may take such action or steps as BUT as responsible members of the Board and not
prescribed by law to make them perform these as the alter egos of the President (Trade and
duties. Investment Development Corp., Philippines vs.
Manalang-Demigillo, March 5, 2013).
POWER OF CONTROL
“Take care clause”
CONTROL SUPERVISION
An officer in control lays Supervision does not • Biraogo vs. The Philippine Truth Commission, 637
down the rules in the cover the authority to SCRA 78 –
doing of an act lay down the rules.
Supervisor or • The President's power to conduct investigations
superintendent merely to ensure that laws are faithfully executed is well
sees to it that the rules recognized. It flows from the faithful- execution
are followed. clause of the Constitution under Article VII,
If rules are not followed, If the rules are not Section thereof. As the Chief Executive, the
he may, in his observed, he may order president represents the government as a whole
discretion, order the act the work done or and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the
undone, redone by his redone but only to officials and employees of his department. He has
subordinate or he may conform to the the authority to directly assume the functions of
decide to do it himself prescribed rules. He the executive department.
may not prescribe his
own manner for the
doing of the act. He has
Military Power
Article VII, Section 18 IT INCLUDES:
• The power to command the Armed Forces of the
Philippines
• The power to suspend the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus
• The power to declare martial law
Military Power
What is the sequence of graduated military
powers of the President?
• Section 18 grants the President, as Commander in-
Chief, a sequence of graduated powers.
• These are:
• the calling out power
• the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
• the power to declare martial law.
Limitation on Military Power
• He may call out the armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion
only.
• The grounds for the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation of
martial law are now limited only to invasion or
rebellion.
• The duration of such suspension or proclamation
shall not exceed sixty days, following which it shall
be automatically lifted.
• Within forty-eight hours after such suspension or
proclamation, the President shall personally or in
writing report his action to the Congress. If not in
session, Congress must convene within 24 hours.
• The Congress may then, by majority votes of all its
members voting jointly, revoke his action. The
revocation may not set aside by the President.
• By the same vote and in the same manner, the
Congress may, upon initiative of the President,
extend his suspension or proclamation for a
period to be determined by the Congress if the
invasion or rebellion shall continue and the public
safety requires extension.
• The action of the President and the Congress shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court which
shall have the authority to determine the
sufficiency of the factual basis of such action. This
matter is no longer considered a political question
and may be raised in an appropriate proceeding
by any citizen. Moreover, the Supreme Court must
decide the challenge within thirty days from the
time it is filed.
• Martial law does not automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
operation of the Constitution. The civil courts and
the legislative bodies shall remain open. Military
courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction
over civilians where the civil courts are
functioning.
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall apply only to persons facing
charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
• Any person arrested for such offenses must be
judicially charged therewith within three days.
Otherwise shall be released.
David vs. Arroyo, May 3, 2006
• The power to call out the AFP is discretionary sole
dependent on the wisdom of the president. But the
exercise of the power may be inquired into to
determine whether it is exercised within
permissible constitutional limits or whether it was
exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of
discretion.
• Despite the declaration of national emergency, the
president cannot exercise emergency powers
under Section 17, Article XII.
• This must be related to Sec. 23 (2), Art. VII. “In
times of war or other national emergency, the
Congress may, by law, authorize the President......”
BAR QUESTION
What do you mean by the “Calling-out Power” of
the President under Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution?
ANSWER
Under Article VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution,
whenever it becomes necessary, the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, may call out the armed forces
to aid him in preventing or suppressing lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion.
SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
What is the writ of habeas corpus?
• The writ of habeas corpus is a writ directed to the
person detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated
time and place, with the day and cause of his
caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and
receive whatever the court or judge awarding the
writ shall consider in hi behalf.
What is the privilege of writ of habeas corpus?
• It is the right to have an immediate determination
of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
What is the meaning of the suspension privilege
of writ of habeas corpus?
• Suspension of the privilege does not suspend the
writ itself, but only it’s privilege. This means that
when the court receives an application for the
writ, and it finds the petition in proper form, it will
issue the writ as a matter of course, If the return to
the writ shows that the person in custody was
apprehended and detained in areas where the
privilege of the writ has been suspended or for
crimes mentioned in the executive proclamation,
the court will suspend further proceedings in the
action.
General Limitations on the Power to Suspend the
Privilege.
1. Time limit of 60 days
2. Review and possible revocation by Congress
3. Review and possible nullification by SC
To Whom Applicable
• The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall
apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion.
GROUNDS
• When public safety requires
• Invasion
• Rebellion
Rebellion Role of Congress
 Congress convenes
 Congress may revoke
 Congress may extend
Role of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
Martial Law
• Martial law in its strict sense refers to that law
which has application when civil authority calls
upon the military arm to aid it in its civil function.
Military arm does not supersede civil authority.
• Martial law in the Philippines is imposed by the
Executive as specifically authorized and within the
limits set by the Constitution
GROUNDS
When public safety requires
 Invasion
 Rebellion
General Limitations on Martial Law
1. Time limit of 60 days
2. Review and possible revocation by Congress
3. Review and possible nullification by SC
Proclamation of martial law does not:
 Suspend the operation of the Constitution
 Supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies
 Authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on
military courts and agencies over where civil
courts are able to function
 Automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
Role of Congress
• Congress convenes
• Congress may revoke
• Congress may extend
Role of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
Bar Question
• The President issued a Proclamation No. 1018
placing the Philippines under Martial Law on the
ground that a rebellion staged by lawless elements
is endangering the public safety. Pursuant to the
Proclamation, suspected rebels were arrested and
detained and military tribunals were set up to try
them. Robert dela Cruz, a citizen, filed with the
Supreme Court a petition questioning the validity
of Proclamation No. 1018. Does Robert have
standing to assail Proclamation No. 1018?
Answer
• Yes, Robert has standing. Under Article VIII,
Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme
Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law. As citizen
therefore, Robert may file the petition questioning
Proclamation No. 1018.
Bar Question
• In the same suit, the Solicitor General contends
that under the Constitution, the President as
Commander-in-Chief, determines whether the
exigency has arisen requiring the exercise of his
power to declare Martial Law and that his
determination is conclusive upon the courts. How
should the Supreme Court rule?
Answer
• The Supreme Court should rule that his
determination is not conclusive upon the courts.
The 1987 Constitution allows a citizen, in an
appropriate proceeding, to file a petition
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of
said proclamation. Moreover, the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the power to impose martial law involve the
curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil
rights and individual freedoms, and thus
necessitate safeguards by Congress and review by
the Supreme Court (IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, August 15, 2000).
Bar Question
• The Solicitor General argues that, in any event, the
determination of whether the rebellion poses
danger to public safety involves a question of fact
and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. What
should be the ruling of the Court?
Answer : Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987
Constitution specifically grants the Supreme Court
the power to review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law. Thus, in the matter
of such declaration, two conditions must concur: (1)
there must be an actual invasion or rebellion; and (2)
public safety must require it. The Supreme Court
cannot renege on its constitutional duty to determine
whether or not the said factual conditions exist (IBP
v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000).
Lagman vs. Medialdea, July 4, 2017
What kind of proceeding should be initiated to
question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
suspension or proclamation under Sec. 18, Art.
VII?
The phrase “in an appropriate proceeding” appearing
in the 3rd paragraph of Art. VII refers to any action
initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of
the Chief executive’s emergency power. It could be
denominated as complaint, a petition, or matter to be
resolved by the Court.
Should the president be factually correct in his
basis for declaration of martial law?
No. In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the declaration and/or suspension, the court
should look into the full complement or totality of the
factual basis, and not piecemeal or individually.
Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness
of the facts stated in the proclamation and in the
written report as the President could not be expected
to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts
reported to him due to urgency of the situation.
What factual situation should be considered by
the Court in determining whether there is
sufficient for the President’s the declaration
and/or suspension?
The determination of the Court as to whether there is
sufficient basis for the declaration and sufficiency
must be based only on the facts or information known
and available to the President at the time he made the
declaration or suspension which facts and
information are found in the proclamation as well as
the written report submitted to Congress.
What quantum of proof does the President need
to satisfy for the declaration and/or suspension?
What the President need to satisfy is only the
standard of probable cause for a valid declaration of
martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus.
In a given emergency situation, is it required of
the President to follow the sequence of graduated
powers?
No. the determination of what power to employ in a
given situation is solely dependent on the president
to decide. Thus, judicial review should not extend to
calibrating the president’s decision pertaining to
which extra-ordinary power to avail given a set of
facts or conditions.
Pardoning Power (executive clemency)
Article VII, Section 19
• Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
final judgment.
• He shall also have the power to grant amnesty
with the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
Forms of Executive Clemency
1. Reprieves
2.Commutations
3.Pardons
4. Remission of fines
5. Forfeitures
6. Amnesty
Limits on Executive Clemency
Constitutional Limitations
1. It cannot be exercised in cases of impeachment
2. Reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remission of fines and forfeitures can be given
only “after conviction by final judgment;
3. A grant of amnesty must be with the concurrence
of a “majority of all the Members of Congress”
4. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and
regulations shall be granted by the President
without the favorable recommendation of
COMELEC.
Other Limitations
1. A pardon cannot be extended to a person
convicted of legislative contempt or civil
contempt.
2. Pardon cannot also be extended for the purpose of
absolving the pardonee of civil liability, including
judicial costs.
3. Pardon will not restore offices forfeited
Diplomatic Power
Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
two-thirds of all the member of the Senate.
Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622
• The Senate does not have the power to ratify
treaty. That power belongs exclusively to the
president.
• The power of the Senate is limited to giving or
withholding consent to the ratification.
• Thus, the President cannot be compelled to submit
to the Senate the treaty ratified by the president
for Senate’s concurrence.
• The president cannot be compelled by mandamus.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Judicial Department (Article VIII)
Article VIII, Section 1
• The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
• Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
Section 14. Restrictions. — No writ of injunction
shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation
being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act,
unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject
matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction
of the Office of the Ombudsman.
• No court shall hear any appeal or application for
remedy against the decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.
Carpio-Morales vs. CA, Nov. 15, 2015
Section 14. Restrictions. — No writ of injunction shall
be issued by any court to delay an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless
there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter
of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the
Office of the Ombudsman.
• No court shall hear any appeal or application for
remedy against the decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.
• The first paragraph: “No writ of injunction shall be
issued by any court to delay an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act was
declared ineffective until the Court adopts the
same as part of the rules of procedure through an
administrative circular duly issued therefor.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII
• Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated
Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
Independence of Judiciary
1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. It
cannot be abolished nor may its membership or
the manner of its meeting be changed by mere
legislation. (Art. 8 §4)
2. The members of the Supreme Court may not be
removed except by impeachment. (Art. 11 §2)
3. The SC may not be deprived of its minimum
original and appellate jurisdiction as prescribed in
Article VIII, Section 5. (Art. 8 §2)
4. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
may not be increased by law without its advice or
concurrence. (Art. 6 §30)
Fabian vs. Disierto
Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals
5. Appointees to the judiciary are now nominated by
the Judicial and Bar Council and no longer subject
to confirmation by Commission on Appointments.
(Art. 8 §9)
De Castro vs. JBC
6. The Supreme Court now has administrative
supervision over all lower courts and their
personnel. (Art. 8 §6)
Maceda vs. Ombudsman
7. The Supreme Court has exclusive power to
discipline judges of lower courts. (Art 8 §11)
8. The members of the Supreme Court and all lower
courts have security of tenure, which cannot be
undermined by a law reorganizing the judiciary.
(Art. 8 §11)
9. They shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. (Art. 8 §12)
10. The salaries of judges may not be reduced during
their continuance in office. (Art. 8 §10)
11. The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy (Art.
8§3)
12. Only the Supreme Court may order the temporary
detail of judges (Art. 8 §5[3])
13. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and
employees of the judiciary. (Art. 8 §5[6])
Judicial Power
A. Judicial Power, where vested
• Judicial power shall be bested with the
Supreme Court and in such other courts as
may be established by law.
B. Definition of Judicial Power
• The duty of the court of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable
What is the broadened concept of judicial power?
• The power to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
Role of Congress
• The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts. (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)
• No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in
this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence (Art. VI, Sec. 30)
In order to decongest the cases pending before the
Supreme Court, the Congress passed a law which
provides that the judgement of the Court of Appeals
in criminal cases imposing a penalty of reclusion
perpetua is final and executory and that said decision
may not anymore be questioned by whatever
procedural means. IS THE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL?
ANSWER
The law is unconstitutional. While it may be true that
the Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts, it may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5,
Article VIII. Under Section 5, Article VIII, the Supreme
Court has the power to review, revise, modify or
affirm decisions of the lower court in criminal cases
in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
higher.
Fabian vs. Desierto
Facts: Petitioner Teresita Fabian was the major
stockholder and President of PROMAT Construction
Development Corporation which was engaged in the
construction business. Private respondent Nestor
Agustin was the District Engineer of the First Metro
Manila Engineering District. PROMAT participated in
the bidding for government construction projects,
and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage
of his official position, inveigled petitioner into an
amorous relationship.
Their affair lasted for some time, in the course of
which, private respondent gifted PROMAT with
public works contracts and interceded for it in
problems concerning the same in his office. When
petitioner tried to terminate their relationship,
private respondent refused and resisted her attempts
to do so to the extent of employing acts of
harassment, intimidation and threats. Petitioner filed
an administrative complaint against private
respondent.
Ombudsman found private respondent guilty of
misconduct and meted out the penalty of suspension
without pay for 1 year. After private respondent
moved for reconsideration, the Ombudsman
discovered that the private respondent’s new counsel
had been his classmate and close associate, hence, he
inhibited himself. The case was transferred to
respondent Deputy Ombudsman who exonerated
private respondent from the administrative charges.
Petitioner appealed to the SC by certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not Section 27 of RA 6770
which provides for appeals in administrative
disciplinary cases from the Office of the
Ombudsman to the SC in accordance with Rule 45
of the Rules of Court is valid
Held: The revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude
appeals from quasi- judicial agencies to the SC via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Under
the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through
a petition for review on certiorari but only from
judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated
in Sec. 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final
orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to
be brought to the CA on a verified petition for review,
under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43
which was precisely formulated and adopted to
provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for
quasi-judicial agencies.
Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize an
appeal to the SC from decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It
consequently violates the proscription in Sec. 30, Art.
VI of the Constitution against a law which increases
the appellate jurisdiction of the SC.
Limitations on the Role of Congress
1) Congress may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5.
(Art. 8 §2)
2) No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members. (Art. 8 §2)
3) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
may not be increased by law except upon its
advice and concurrence. (Art. 6 §30)
THE SUPREME COURT
A. Composition
Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed
of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It
may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
B. Qualification
Section 7.
(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the
Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court
must be at least forty years of age, and must have
been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower
court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.;
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of
judges of lower courts, but no person may be
appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of
the Philippines and a member of the Philippine
Bar;
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL
Ex-Officio Members
1. SC Chief Justice
2. Secretary of Justice
3. Representative of Congress
Regular Members*
4. Representative of IBP
5. Professor of Law
6. Retired Member of Supreme Court
7. Representative of private sector
*Subject to confirmation of Commission on
Appointments
Function of JBC.
• JBC’s principal function is to recommend to the
President appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.
• Rationale for Creation of JBC. The Council was
principally designed to eliminate politics from the
appointment and judges and justices. Thus,
appointments to the Judiciary do not have to go
through a political Commission on Appointments.
Appointment
• Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation. For the lower courts, the President
shall issue the appointments within ninety days
from the submission of the list.
Why at least 3? The reason for requiring at least
three nominees for every vacancy is to give the
President enough leeway in the exercise of his
discretion when he makes his appointment. If the
nominee were limited to only one, the appointment
would in effect be made by the Judicial and Bar
Council, with the President performing only the
mathematical act of formalizing the commission.
How may Supreme Court Justices be Removed?
By Impeachment. The Members of the Supreme
Court are removable only by impeachment. They can
be said to have failed to satisfy the requirement of
“good behaviour” only if they are guilty of the
offenses which are constitutional grounds of
impeachment.
Supreme Court Justices
Grounds for Removal*
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
2.Treason;
3. Bribery;
4. Graft and Corruption;
5. Other High Crimes
6. Betrayal of Public Trust *(Article XI, Section 2)
May a disbarment case be filed against sitting
Supreme Court Justice?
• A Supreme Court Justice cannot be charged in a
criminal case or a disbarment proceeding, because
the ultimate effect of either is to remove him from
office, and thus circumvent the provision on
removal by impeachment thus violating his
security of tenure (In Re: First Endorsement from
Hon. Raul Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-4-5433)
Powers of Supreme Court
• General Power (Judicial Power)
 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
 To decide all cases involving the constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive agreement,
 or law, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations.
Article VIII, Section 4(5)
 Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
Article VIII, Section 5(1)
 Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of
law is involved.
What are the cases that may be heard by the
Supreme Court en banc?
• All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law.
• All other cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc.
• All cases involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations.
• Cases where the majority votes cannot be
obtained in division.
• Cases where the SC modifies doctrine or principle
of law.
Are the decisions of a division appealable to SC en
banc?
• NO. Decision or resolutions of a division of a court
is not appealable to en banc. Decision or resolution
promulgated by a division is actually a decision or
resolution of the Supreme Court. SC en banc is not
an appellate court with respect to the decisions or
resolutions of a division. Each division is not
considered as inferior to SC en banc.
Rule Making Power
Article VIII, Section 5(5)
• Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated
bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
• THUS: SC has the power to promulgate rules
concerning:
1. The protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights;
2. Pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts
3. The admission to the practice of law,
4. The Integrated Bar;
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged.
HOWEVER: SC power to promulgate rules has
limitations:
1. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases.
2. They shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade.
3. They shall not diminish, increase, modify
substantive rights.
• One of the limitations on SC rule making power is
that it must not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
Substantive law vs. Procedural law
Substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights
while Procedural law prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion
Estipona vs. Lobrigo, August 15, 2017
• This case involves the constitutionality of Section
23 of RA 9165 which provides:
SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. -Any person
charged under any provision of this Act regardless
of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to
avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
• The SC declared unconstitutional for violation of
the rule making power of the SC under Sec. 5(5) of
Art. VIII.
• Plea bargaining is a matter of procedure. the rules
on Plea bargaining neither creates a right nor take
away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means
to implement an existing right by regulating the
judicial process for enforcing rights and duties
recognized by substantive law and for justly
administering remedy and redress for a disregard
or infraction of them.
In Re Cunanan
• What is involved in this case is the
Constitutionality of R.A. 972 (Bar Flunkers
Act of 1953). This law provided that those bar
examiners who obtained a certain grade from
1946 to 1955 should be allowed admission to
the bar.
• It should be noted that at that time, the 1935
Constitution gives the Congress the power to
repeal, alter or supplement the rules
promulgated by the SC.
• In determining whether the law is valid the SC
distinguished the authority to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to the
practice of law and the actual admission to
practice through the application of these
rules.
• According to the Court, the first is a legislative
or quasi-legislative function and in it the
legislature had been given a revisory role
subordinate to the role of the Court. The
second is a judicial function and the
legislature exercised no revisory role.
In re: Atty. Marcial Edillon
• In this case, Atty. Edillon the requirement of
membership in the Integrated Bar as a pre-
condition for the practice of law.
• Specifically, Atty. Edillon questioned the
payment of dues as condition for continued
membership in the Integrated Bar.
• To compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate.
• Integration does not make a lawyer a member
of any group of which he is not already a
member. He became a member of the Bar
when he passed the Bar examinations. All that
integration actually does is to provide an
official national organization for the well-
defined but unorganized and incohesive
group of which every lawyer is a ready a
member.
• Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to
associate with anyone. He is free to attend or
not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion
to which he is subjected is the payment of
annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to
further the State's legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal
services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be
 shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of
the regulatory program — the lawyers.
• We see nothing in the Constitution that
prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules
concerning the admission to the practice of
law and the integration of the Philippine Bar
(Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution)
— which power the respondent
acknowledges — from requiring members of
a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay
a reasonable fee toward defraying the
expenses of regulation of the profession to
which they belong. It is quite apparent that
the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory
measure, designed to raise funds for carrying
out the objectives and purposes of
integration.
In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera
• This is a petition to disqualify Atty. De Vera to
be elected a governor of IBP Eastern
Mindanao.
• Atty. De Vera contended that the Court has no
jurisdiction over the controversy as it
involved internal matter which is primarily
governed by IBP By-Laws.
• The contention of Atty. De Vera is untenable.
Section 5(5) confers on the Court the power
to promulgate rules affecting the IBP. Implicit
in this constitutional grant is the power to
supervise all activities of the IBP including the
election of its officers. Even the IBP By-Laws
recognizes this power of the Supreme Court.
In fact Section 44 thereof gives the Court the
power to remove members of Board of
Governors.
Power of Judicial Review
• It is the power of the Supreme Court to
declare a law, treaty, international or
executive agreement, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance
or regulation unconstitutional.
• Actual case or controversy
• It must be raised by a proper party
• It must be raised at the earliest proper
opportunity
• It must be necessary to the determination of
the case
Actual Case or Controversy
• Actual case or controversy involves conflicts of
legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims
susceptible of judicial resolutions.
• There is no actual case or controversy if the
petitioner’s merely ask for opinion or the case is
already considered moot.
• The controversy must be definite and concrete,
touching the legal relations of the parties having
adverse legal interest.
Actual Case or Controversy
CORONA vs. Senate
The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the
proceedings in the Senate. It was dismissed for being
moot.
PACU vs. Secretary of Education
Petitioner questioned the regulation of the
respondent requiring private colleges and
universities to operate to first obtain permit before
they can operate.
PHILCONSA vs. Villareal
It was a petition to compel the Speaker to produce the
book accounts of that body in which were recorded
the amounts appropriated by legislators for their
allowances.
Already moot, but court may still decide:
• There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
• The exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;
• When the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public;
 • The case is capable of repetition yet evading
review; (David vs. Arroyo)
Proper Party (standing)
• A proper party is one who has sustained or is
in immediate danger of sustaining an injury
as a result of the act complained of.
• Unless and until such actual or potential
injury is established, the complaint cannot
have the legal personality to raise
constitutional question.
Is substantial or potential injury rule absolute?
Jurisprudence allow the “liberal approach” to
standing. When the subject in issue is of
transcendental interest to the public, the Court
entertain the suit even if those suing have no personal
or direct interest such that they are stand to suffer
harm.
What are the exceptions to the general rule on
standing?
• Overbreadth doctrine
• Taxpayer suits
• Third party standing
• Doctrine of transcendental importance.
Overbreadth as an Exception to the General Rule on
Standing
• The overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool
developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in
free speech cases, also known under the American
Law as First Amendment cases.
• Simply put, the validity of the law may be facially
challenged if it tends to reach and make
punishable the constitutionally protected speech.
Why is this an exception to the general rule on
standing?
• The factor that motivates courts to depart from
the normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with
the "chilling;" deterrent effect of the overbroad
statute on third parties not courageous enough to
bring suit. The Court assumes that an overbroad
law’s "very existence may cause others not before
the court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or expression." An overbreadth
ruling is designed to remove that deterrent effect
on the speech of those third parties.
• In other words, anybody, not necessarily the one
actually affected or would tend to be affected by
the statute, may challenge the validity of the law
on its face.
• Thus, the general rule on standing does not apply.
Third Party Standing as an Exception to the
General Rule on Standing
• Third party standing is the right of the litigant to
bring suit in behalf of third party.
• Third party standing to be applicable the
following requisites must be present:
 Injury-in-fact
 Close relation to third party
 Hindrance to third party’s ability to protect
his or his interest
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila
• Ordinance No. 7774: “An Ordinance Prohibiting
Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission
Rates, and Wash Up Rate Schemes in Hotels,
Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses, and
Similar Establishment in the City of Manila
• The Petitioners in this case are owners of the
motels whose business will be greatly affected by
implementation of the ordinance. None of the
patrons who avail of short-time services or wash
up schemes questioned the validity of the
ordinance.
• Petitioners assail the validity of the Ordinance on
grounds of due process:
1) as to them, deprivation of property;
2) as to their patrons, restriction of their liberty.
Can petitioners invoke as ground for the
invalidity of the Ordinance that which is properly
invocable by their patrons who were not
impleaded or part of the suit?
"We have recognized the right of litigants to bring
actions on behalf of third parties, provided three
important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have
suffered an ‘injury-in-fact,’ thus giving him or her a
"sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the
issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close
relation to the third party; and there must exist some
hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or
her own interests.”
Herein, it is clear that the business interests of the
petitioners are likewise injured by the Ordinance.
They rely on the patronage of their customers for
their continued viability which appears to be
threatened by the enforcement of the Ordinance.
Tax Payer Suit
• Taxpayer suit may be allowed if the case involves
expenditure of public funds, provided it can be
shown:
 That he has sufficient interest in preventing
the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation
 That he will sustain a direct injury as a result
of the enforcement of the questioned statute.
Gonzales vs. Narvasa, August 14, 2000
• The Preparatory Commission on Constitutional
Reform (PCCR) was created by President Estrada
on November 26, 1998 by virtue of Executive
Order No. 43 (E.O. No. 43) in order “to study and
recommend proposed amendments and/or
revisions to the 1987 Constitution, and the
manner of implementing the same.”
• Petitioner disputes the constitutionality of the
PCCR on Two Grounds.
• First, he contends that it is a public office which
only the legislature can create by way of a law.
• Secondly, petitioner asserts that by creating such
a body the President is intervening in a process
from which he is totally excluded by the
Constitution – the amendment of the fundamental
charter.
• A taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise
a constitutional issue when it is established that
public funds have been disbursed in alleged
contravention of the law or the Constitution. Thus
payer’s action is properly brought only when
there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power.
• In this case, there is no exercise by Congress of its
taxing or spending power. The PCCR was created
by the President by virtue of E.O. No. 43, as
amended by E.O. No. 70. Under section 7 of E.O. No.
43, the amount of P3 million is “appropriated” for
its operational expenses “to be sourced from the
funds of the Office of the President.”
• The appropriations for the PCCR were authorized
by the President, not by Congress. In fact, there
was no an appropriation at all. The funds used for
the PCCR were taken from funds intended for the
Office of the President, in the exercise of the Chief
Executive’s power to transfer funds pursuant to
section 25 (5) of article VI of the Constitution.
• In a strict sense, appropriation has been defined
‘as nothing more than the legislative authorization
prescribed by the Constitution that money may be
paid out of the Treasury’, while appropriation
made by law refers to ‘the act of the legislature
setting apart or assigning to a particular use a
certain sum to be used in the payment of debt or
dues from the State to its creditors.
Political Question
• “Political questions” doctrine constitutes another
limitation on the power of judicial review. This is
one class of cases which the Court refuses to touch.
But what is “political questions”? When can we
say that an issue in a case is a political question?
“Those questions which under the Constitution, are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government.”
• Tanada vs. Cuenco
• Baker vs. Carr: Cases are of political
complexion if:
• "Textually demonstrable constitutional
commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political department.”
 In other words, if it is clear from the
language of the constitution that the
resolution of the issue is committed to a
coordinate political department.
• Baker vs. Carr: Cases are of political
complexion if:
 A lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it.
 Or it is impossible for the court to decide
without an initial policy determination of
a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion.
• Baker vs. Carr: Cases are of political
complexion if:
 The impossibility of a court's undertaking
independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due
coordinate branches of government.
 An unusual need for unquestioning
adherence to a political decision already
made.
 The potentiality of embarrassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question.
 However, because of the expanded
definition of judicial power under the
1987 Constitution, the criteria of political
question in Baker vs. Carr are not
applicable.
 But, it should not be misconstrued that
the 1987 Constitution has not nullified
the long standing doctrine on political
question. They are still applicable but not
as frequently applied during the aegis of
the 1973 Constitution when the
Philippine was under the dictatorship.
Cases where political question was applied
Arroyo vs. De Venecia, August 14, 1997
• Where the issue was whether the Court could
intervene in the case where the House was said to
have disregarded its own rule. The Court said it
could not because the matter of formulating rules
and implementing those rules belongs to
Congress.
Santiago vs. Guingona, November 18, 1998
• The Court refused to intervene in the dispute as to
who would occupy to the position not created by
the Constitution but by the Rules of the Senate.
International Catholic Migration vs. Hon. Calleja,
September 28, 1990
• The conferment by the executive of diplomatic
immunity is essentially a political question which
the courts cannot look into.
Effect of Unconstitutionality
• The Supreme Court has rejected the view that an
unconstitutional act confers no rights, imposes no
duties, and affords no protection whatsoever.
Instead, the Court has adopted the view that
before an act is declared unconstitutional, it is an
“operative fact” which can be a source of rights
and duties.
 This is the doctrine of operative fact.
Power of Supervision
• Article VIII, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall
have administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof.
• Article VIII, Section 11. The Supreme Court en
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of
lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of
a majority of the Members who actually took part
in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon
May the Ombudsman investigate irregularities in
the performance of a judge independently of any
administrative action taken by the Supreme
Court?
NO. Maceda vs Vasquez - The power of
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court
includes the power to discipline judges of the lower
courts or judiciary personnel. The exclusivity of this
power is zealously guarded by the SC. Thus, as held in
Maceda vs. Vasquez, the Ombudsman may not
investigate a judge independently of any
administrative action of the Supreme Court.
Judge Caoiles vs. Ombudsman
• Likewise the Ombudsman cannot determine for
itself and by itself whether a criminal complaint
against a judge, or court employee, involves an
administrative matter. The Ombudsman is duty
bound to have all cases against judges and court
personnel filed before it, referred to Supreme
Court for determination as to whether an
administrative aspect is involved therein.
Constitutional Commission
Fiscal Autonomy (Section 5, Article IX-A)
CSC vs. DBM, July 22, 2005
• The “no report no release” policy of the COA may
not be validly enforced against offices vested with
fiscal autonomy for whom, according to the
Constitution, appropriation must be automatically
released.
Rotational Scheme of Appointments
• The first appointees shall serve for terms of seven,
five, and three years, respectively.
• In order to preserve the periodic succession
mandated by the Constitution, the rotational plan
requires two conditions:
 The term of the first commissioners
should start on a common date
 Any vacancy before expiration should be
filled only for the unexpired balance
(Gaminde vs. COA, December 13, 2000)
Powers of the Comelec (Section 2, Article IX-C)
3. “Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number of and location of the
polling places appointment of election officials
and inspections and registration of voters.
Jurisdiction over Election Contest
• Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials
• And appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by
trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts
of limited jurisdiction.
• Article IX-C, Section 3 - “The Commission on
Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite disposition of election cases, including
pre-proclamation controversies. All such election
cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en
banc. ”
Who has jurisdiction over the qualifications of
party-list? Comelec or HRET?
• The Comelec has jurisdiction. However, with
respect to the qualification of the nominees of
party list, it is the HRET which has jurisdiction.
Layug vs. Comelec, (February 28, 2012)
Does Comelec had certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus power? - Yes, only in election cases.
Relampagos vs. Cumba, (1995)
What is the jurisdiction of Comelec division vis-à-
vis Comelec en banc? - The Court held that it is the
commission sitting in division, and not the
Commission en banc, which has jurisdiction over
petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. The
Commission sitting en banc does not have the power
to hear and decide election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, in first instance, as the
Comelec in division has such authority .
 • Pacificador vs. Comelec, March 13, 2009
• Sarmiento vs. Comelec, 212 SCRA 307

The SC set aside the resolutions of the Comelec

because the Comelec en banc took original
cognizance of the cases without referring them first
to the appropriate division.

Abad vs. Comelec, December 10, 1999

Even cases appealed from the Regional Trial Court or

Municipal Trial Court have to be heard and decided
first in the Division before they may be heard en banc
upon the filing of the motion for reconsideration of
the Division decision.

When En Banc May Entertain

Municipal Board of Canvassers vs. Comelec,

October 23, 2003

• Thus, the rule that all election cases, including pre-

proclamation cases, should first be heard and
decided by the Comelec in division applies only
when the comelec exercises it adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial function, not when it exercises
purely administrative functions (Canicosa vs.
Comelec, December 5, 1997)

• Petition for correction of manifest errors alleges

an erroneous copying of figures from election
return to the Statement of Votes by precinct. Such
error in tabulation of results, which merely
requires clerical correction without opening the
ballot boxes or examining the ballots, demands
only the exercise of the administrative power of
the Comelec. (Jaramilla vs. Comelec, October 23,
2003)

SC’s Jurisdiction over Comelec’ Decision

• Only decisions of the Comelec en banc may be

brought to SC under Rule 65.

• However, the decision referred to above is that

one issued in the Comelec’s exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial function. Where the
decision being questioned is one that is issued the
Comelec’s exercise of its administrative function,
the same may be brought to an appropriate Court.
(Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop vs. Ferrer,
135 SCRA 25)