BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
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.
Section 5. (1) The HoR shall be composed of not more than
250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the PC
MM 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 NRS parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated
to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each
city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand,
or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census,
the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standards provided in this section.
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
COMPOSITION
One President Supreme Court
One Vice-President Lower courts
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 divisions of
three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
international or executive agreement, or law, which
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all
other cases which under the Rules of Court are
required to be heard en banc, including those involving
the constitutionality, application, or operation of
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders,
instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall
be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be
decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority
of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at
least three of such Members. When the required
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en
banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law
laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc
or in division may be modified or reversed except by
the court sitting en banc.
M.S. MONES | 1
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Tobias v. Abalos – Composition of HoR may be increased, if
Congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment.
Mariano v. Comelec –
(1) Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made
through special law, such as charter of a new city;
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Limketkai Sons Milling v. CA – Composition of the
divisions of the Supreme Court is internal in character.
The reorganization is purely an internal matter of the
Court to which petitioner clearly has no business at all.

(2) The minimum population for cities only applies for the
first apportionment. It does not have to increase its population
by another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional district.

Aquino v. Comelec – Initial and subsequent apportionment of

legislative districts for provinces do not require a minimum
population. Section 5 (3) Article VI requires a 250,000
minimum population only for a city, but not so for a province.
A province is entitled to an initial seat by the mere fact of its
creation and regardless of its population.

Montejo v. Comelec – The power to reapportion legislative

district cannot be exercised by Comelec.

QUALIFICATIONS (CALVRes – Cit, age, literacy/experience, voter, residence)

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.
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-
five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-
list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which
he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not
less than one year immediately preceding the day of the
election.
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able
to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
same qualifications and term of office and be elected with and
in the same manner as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
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.

M.S. MONES | 2
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Pimentel Jr v. Comelec – The qualifications of the Members (3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of
of the Congress are exclusive. Subject to the provisions on proven competence, integrity, probity, and
nuisance candidates, a candidate for senator needs only to independence.
meet the qualifications laid down in Sec. 3, Art. VI. Beyond
these qualifications, candidates for senator need not possess
any other qualification to run for senator and be voted upon
and elected as member of the Senate.

Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec – Residence is synonymous

with domicile in election law. Conditions for losing domicile
of origin: (1) actual removal/change of domicile; (2) bona fide
intention of abandoning; (3) acts which correspond with the
purpose.

Aquino v. Comelec – To qualify as a candidate for

Representative, one "must prove that he has established not
just residence but domicile of choice.”

Frivaldo v. Comelec – Citizenship must be possessed at the

time term of office begins.

DISQUALIFICATIONS/PROHIBITIONS/INHIBITIONS
Omnibus Election Code:
Section 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been
declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has
been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has
been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months, or
for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
Omnibus Election Code: Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and
Section 12. Disqualifications. - Any person who has been of other courts established by law shall not be
declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, administrative functions. (NO ADDITIONAL
insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has DESIGNATION)
been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months, or
for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to
be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall
be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent
authority that said insanity or incompetence had been
removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from
his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again
becomes disqualified.
This disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall
be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent
authority that said insanity or incompetence had been
removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from
his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again
becomes disqualified.

M.S. MONES | 3
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Article VI, 1987 Constitution:
Section 13. 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.
(INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICE)
Zandueta v De la Costa – GR: Forfeiture of congressional
seat due to acceptance of an incompatible office occurs when
the member of Congress takes an oath to the incompatible
office and starts to discharge the functions thereof. EXC: (1)
when non-acceptance of new appointment may affect public
interest; or (2) when he is compelled to accept it by reason of
legal exigencies.
Liban v. Gordon – There is no violation of Section 13 of
Article VI since Philippine National Red Cross can neither be
classified as an instrumentality of the State nor strictly as a
private corporation.
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He
shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
called upon to act on account of his office.
(PARLIAMENTARY INHIBITIONS AND
DISQUALIFICATION)
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Article VII, 1987 Constitution:
Section 6. x x x No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent
during which such increase was approved. They shall not
receive during their tenure any other emolument from the
Government or any other source.
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of
the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office
or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted
by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his
tenure be appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus
or offices, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
Funa v. Agra – The disqualification also applies to
appointments in acting capacity. Being designated as the
Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of
Acting Solicitor General, Agra was undoubtedly covered by
Section 13, Article VII. Section 13 makes no reference to the
nature of appointment or designation. The prohibition against
multiple office being held by one official must be construed
as to apply to all appointments or designations, whether
permanent or temporary.
M.S. MONES | 4
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Puyat v. De Guzman - Indirect intervention in a pending case
is included in the disqualification. The intervention of
Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case falls within the
ambit of the said constitutional prohibition.
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary –
(1) The sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions are proof of the
intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat the President and his
official family (President to Assistant Secretary) as a class by
itself and to impose upon said class stricter prohibitions. The
qualifying phrase “unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution” in Section 13, Article VII cannot possibly refer
to the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IX-
B of the Constitution.
(2) The prohibition does not apply to officials in an ex-officio
capacity. It must not be construed to apply to posts occupied
by the Executive officials without additional compensation in
an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by
the primary functions of said officials’ office.
(3) The ex-officio position being actually and in legal
contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the
official concerned has no right to receive additional
compensation for his services in the said position. The reason
is that these services are already paid for and covered by the
compensation attached to his principal office. It should be
obvious that if, say, the Secretary of Finance attends a
meeting of the Monetary Board as an ex-officio member
thereof, he is actually and in legal contemplation performing
the primary function of his principal office in defining policy
in monetary banking matters, which come under the
jurisdiction of his department. For such attendance, therefore,
he is not entitled to collect any extra compensation, whether
it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an
allowance, or some other such euphemism. By whatever
name it is designated, such additional compensation is
prohibited by the Constitution.
Doromal v. Sandiganbayan – Section 13 is applicable in a
case where the accused has not signed any document of any
bid of the family corporation of which he is a member,
submitted to any government department. Section 13, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "the President,
Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and their deputies
M.S. MONES | 5
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
or assistants shall not... during (their) tenure, directly or
indirectly participate in any business."

Dela Cruz v. COA - Since the Executive Department

Secretaries, as ex-oficio members of the NHA Board, are
prohibited from receiving extra (additional) compensation,
whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or
an allowance, or some other such euphemism," it follows that
petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be
entitled to receive such compensation.

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next

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

Aytona v. Castillo –

(1) After the proclamation of the duly elected President, the

outgoing President became no more than a “caretaker”
administrator whose duty was to “prepare for the orderly
transfer of authority to the incoming President.”

(2) Reason for prohibition: It is not for the incumbent

President to continue the political warfare that had ended or
to avail himself of presidential prerogatives to serve partisan
purposes. The issuance of 350 appointments in one night and
the planned induction of almost all of them a few hours before
the inauguration of the new President may be regarded as an
abuse of Presidential prerogative.

(3) As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be

reconsidered where the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad
interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing
President

M.S. MONES | 6
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta – Two appointments prohibited
by Section 15: (a) those made for buying votes (made within
two months preceding a Presidential election); and (b) those
made for partisan considerations (midnight appointments).

De Castro v. JBC – The appointment ban does not apply to

the Judiciary. Section 4(1), Article VII imposes on the
President the imperative duty to make an appointment of a
Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the
occurrence of the vacancy. The failure by the President to do
so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution. The 90-
day limitation fixed in Section 4(1), Article VIII for the
President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court was
undoubtedly a special provision to establish a definite
mandate for the President as the appointing power, and cannot
be defeated by mere judicial interpretation in Valenzuela to
the effect that Section 15, Article VII prevailed because it was
"couched in stronger negative language." Such interpretation
even turned out to be conjectural, in light of the records of the
Constitutional Commission's deliberations on Section 4 (1),
Article VIII.

Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular
election of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the HoR, a
special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the
manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the
HoR thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
SELECTION
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be
elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be
eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as
President and has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby
created under the supervision of the Supreme Court
composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the
Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of
the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of
the private sector.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was
elected.
(2) The regular Members of the Council shall be
appointed by the President for a term of four years with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of
the Members first appointed, the representative of the
Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor
of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years,
M.S. MONES | 7
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second
Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each
province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed
to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates
of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than
thirty days after the day of the election, open all certificates
in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress,
upon determination of the authenticity and due execution
thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an
equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of
the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
and the representative of the private sector for one
year.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the
Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a
record of its proceedings.
(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive
such emoluments as may be determined by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in
its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.
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.

Brillantes v. Comelec – The COMELEC cannot make

“unofficial count” for Presidential and Vice-Presidential
elections. Resolution No. 6712 usurps, under the guise of an
"unofficial" tabulation of election results based on a copy of
the election returns, the sole and exclusive authority of
Congress to canvass the votes for the election of President and
Vice-President.

Lopez v. PET – By providing that the Presidential Electoral

Tribunal "shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other
M.S. MONES | 8
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ten Members of the Supreme Court," RA1793 has conferred
upon such Court an additional original jurisdiction of an
exclusive character. It has not created a new or separate court.
It has merely conferred upon the Supreme Court
the functions of a Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The result
of the enactment may be likened to the fact that courts of first
instance perform the functions of such ordinary courts of first
instance, those of court of land registration, those of probate
courts, and those of courts of juvenile and domestic relations.
(note: 1966 case)

Macalintal v. PET - When the Supreme Court, as PET,

resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it
performs what is essentially a judicial power. The present
Constitution has allocated to the Supreme Court, in
conjunction with latter’s exercise of judicial power inherent
in all courts, the task of deciding presidential and vice-
presidential election contests, with full authority in the
exercise thereof. The power wielded by PET is a derivative of
the plenary judicial power allocated to courts of law,
expressly provided in the Constitution.

Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a HoR, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum. (GENERAL
PLENARY POWER)
Pimentel Jr v. Comelec – While comprehensive, the powers
of Congress remain limited in the sense that it is subject to
substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe
both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable
subjects of legislation.
POWERS
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines. (EXECUTIVE POWER)
Marcos v. Manglapus –
(1) Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers
in Article VII of the Constitution. The President is the head
of state as well as head of government and whatever powers
inherent in such positions pertain to the office unless the
Constitution itself withholds it.
(2) The President has residual powers to protect the general
welfare of the people, founded on the duty of the President as
steward of the people. It is the duty to do anything not
forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the
nation demand.
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. (JUDICIAL
POWER)
M.S. MONES | 9
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 21. The Senate or HoR 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. (POWER OF LEGISLATIVE
INVESTIGATION)
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee - Legislative
inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination
of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or
the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to
any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress
and/or in the Senate alone.
Arnault v. Nazareno – (1) The power to conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation is inherent in Congress; (2) Each house may
issue contempt order in the exercise of its power to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation.
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks –
Mere filing of criminal complaint does not divest congress of
its power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. The
exercise of sovereign legislative authority cannot be made
subordinate to a criminal/administrative investigation.
Gudani v. Senga – The President may prevent members of the
AFP to attend inquiries in aid of legislation in the exercise of
military powers. The adequate remedy of Congress if the
President is not inclined to compel attendance is to secure
final judicial order.
In Re Petition for the Issuance of WHC of Camilo Sabio.
Miguel v. Gordon – No law may be enacted exempting any
person from the authority of the Congress to conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation. A mere provision of law cannot pose a
limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of
any constitutional basis.
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
(3) The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific
powers of the President, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the
general grant of executive power.
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the
heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in
rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only
until after disapproval by the Commission on Appointments
or until the next adjournment of the Congress. (POWER OF
APPOINTMENT)
Binamira v. Garucho - Appointment may be defined as the
selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office.
When completed, usually with its confirmation, the
appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen
unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of
his office. Designation connotes merely the imposition by law
of additional duties on an incumbent official, as where, in the
case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism
Authority, or where, under the Constitution, three Justices of
the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit
in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Santiago v. Bautista –
(1) Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that (a)
there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights or
persons or property under which adverse claims to
such rights are made; and (b) the controversy ensuing
therefrom is brought before the tribunal, board, or
officer clothes with the power and authority to
determine what the law is and thereupon adjudicate the
respective rights of contending parties.
(2) The courts may not exercise judicial power when
there is no applicable law. An award of honors to a
student by a board of teachers may not be reversed by
a court where the awards are governed by no
applicable law.
Mantruste Systems, Inc. v. CA – The Congress may
define the jurisdiction of various courts. The power to
define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the
various courts belongs to the legislature, except that it
may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction
over cases enumerated in Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
M.S. MONES | 10
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Senate v. Ermita –
(1) Appearance in inquiries in aid of legislation is mandatory.
The operation of government, being a legitimate subject for
legislation, is a proper subject for investigation. Since
Congress has authority to inquire into operations of the
executive branch, the power of inquiry extends to executive
officials who are the most familiar with and informed on
executive operations;
(2) The President cannot prevent executive officials in
attending inquiries in aid of legislation. S/he may not issue a
blanket requirement of prior consent on executive officials
summoned by the legislature to attend a congressional
hearing;
(3) Three traditional privileges in executive privilege: (a)
State secrets privilege; (b) informer’s privilege; (c) internal
deliberations.
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability – Executive
privilege is an exception to the power of legislative inquiry.
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. (OVERSIGHT
FUNCTION/QUESTION HOUR)
Senate v. Ermita – Attendance in question hour was meant to
be discretionary. That department heads may not be required
to appear in a question hour does not mean that the legislature
is rendered powerless to elicit information from them in all
circumstances.
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially
executive while designation is legislative in nature.
Sarmiento v. Mison –
Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are 4
groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) The heads of the executive departments, ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution;
(b) All other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law;
(c) Those whom the President may be authorized by law to
appoint;
(d) Officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress
may by law vest in the President alone.
The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments. Appointments
of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the
nomination is confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments, the President appoints.
The second, third and fourth groups of officers are the present
bone of contention. Should they be appointed by the President
with or without the consent (confirmation) of the Commission
on Appointments? By following the accepted rule in
constitutional and statutory construction that an express
enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated, it
would follow that only those appointments to positions
expressly stated in the first group require the consent
(confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments.
Bautista v. Salonga –
(1) Ad interim appointments apply only to appointments that
require confirmation. Ad interim appointments extend only to
appointments where the review of the Commission on
Appointments is needed. That is why ad interim appointments
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
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.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other
stations as public interest may require. Such temporary
assignment shall not exceed six months without the
consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
(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 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,
M.S. MONES | 11
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress
may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
thereof. (DECLARATION OF STATE OF WAR;
DELEGATION OF EMERGENCY POWERS)
David v. Arroyo - Knowing that during grave emergencies, it
may not be possible or practicable for Congress to meet and
exercise its powers, the Framers of our Constitution deemed
it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the
President, subject to certain conditions, thus:
(1) There must be a war or other emergency.
(2) The delegation must be for a limited period only.
(3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as
the Congress may prescribe.
(4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a
national policy declared by Congress.
Section 24. 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.
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
are to remain valid until disapproval by the COA or until the
next adjournment of Congress.
(2) Appointments that do not need confirmation remain so,
even if the President voluntarily submits the same to the
Commission on Appointments. Confirmation of COA is not
needed in appointment of the Chairman of CHR because such
appointment is not vested in the President of the Constitution.
Matibag v. Benipayo – Ad interim appointment is permanent
appointment. It takes effect immediately and can no longer be
withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified
into office.
Calderon v. Carale – The Congress cannot expand the list of
officers whose appointments are subject to confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments. The NLRC Chairman and
Commissioners are among those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint. They are not among the officers
mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16 whose
appointments require confirmation.
Flores v. Drilon – While the Congress can provide the
qualifications of the appointee, it cannot do so in such a way
that the Congress identifies the specific person. A law which
limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment
to the prerogative of the President because appointment
involves the discretion to choose who to appoint.
Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments – Sectoral
representatives require COA confirmation. The appointment
of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. The seats reserved for
sectoral representatives may be filled by appointment by the
President by express provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the
Constitution.
Tarrosa v. Singson - Appointment of Central Bank Governor
does not need COA confirmation.
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the
Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Drilon v. Lim – Trial court must be careful in deciding
constitutional questions. Every court, including this
Court, is charged with the duty of a purposeful
hesitation before deciding a law unconstitutional, on
the theory that the measure was first carefully studied
by the executive and the legislative departments and
determined by them to be in accordance with the
fundamental law before it was finally approved. The
presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only
by the clearest showing that there was indeed an
infraction of the Constitution.
First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA – Rules of Court will
take precedence over laws on matters of procedure.
The question of where and in what manner appeals
from decisions of the BOI should be brought pertains
only to procedure or the method of enforcing the
substantive right to appeal granted by EO226.
Aruelo v. CA – COMELEC cannot promulgate rules
governing proceedings before the courts of justice.
The COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the
filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The
power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings,
practice and procedure in all courts is vested in the
Supreme Court.
M.S. MONES | 12
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
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.
(2) 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.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) 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 proposed therein.
(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.
(6) 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.
(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 reenacted and shall remain in
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Luego v. Civil Service Commission - The permanent
appointment made by the appointing authority may not be
reversed by CSC and call it temporary. CSC is without
authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that
another person was better qualified, which is an
encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the
appointing authority.
Pobre v. Mendieta - The vacancy in the position of Chairman
of the Professional Regulation Commission cannot be filled
by the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation of law
(or by succession) because it will deprive the President of the
power to appoint the Chairman.
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed. (POWER OF
CONTROL; TAKE CARE POWER)
Drilon v. Lim - An officer in control lays down the rules in
the doing of an act. It they are not followed, he may, in his
discretion, order the act undone or redone by his subordinate
or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not
cover such authority. The supervisor or superintendent
merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself
does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion
to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, he
may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to
the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner
for the doing of the act. He has no judgment on this matter
except to see to it that the rules are followed.
Araneta v. Gatmaitan - When Congress authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to promulgate
rules and regulations, the President may exercise his power
and authority to control executive departments.
Villena v. Secretary of Interior – Doctrine of qualified
political agency. Acts of the Secretaries of Executive
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have
administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof. (POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPERVISION)
Maceda v. Vasquez – Complaints against judges must
first be referred to the Supreme Court. In the absence
of any administrative action taken against him by the
Supreme Court with regard to his certificates of
service, the investigation being conducted by the
Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers. By virtue of Section 6, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is only the Supreme Court that can
oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance
with all laws and take the proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof.
Thus, the Ombudsman should first refer the matter of
petitioner’s certificates of service to the Supreme
Court for determination of whether said certificates
reflected the true status of his pending case load. The
Ombudsman cannot compel the Supreme Court to
submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify
on this matter.
Raquiza v. Castaneda, Jr. – Required quantum of
evidence in administrative cases against judges. The
ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be
established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule
where the charges on which the removal is sought is
misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption,
incompetency, etc.
Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during good
behavior until they reached the age of seventy years or
become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
M.S. MONES | 13
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed
by the Congress.
Section 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
(2) 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, or 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.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special
purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such
purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any,
shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
(SPECIFIC POWER OF APPROPRIATION)
Garcia v. Mata – A rider, a provision not related to the
appropriation bill, is prohibited. The provision “after the
approval of this Act, and when there is no emergency, no
reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be
called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during
any period of five consecutive years” has no relation to any
appropriation item in the Appropriation Act.
Demetria v. Alba – Transfer of funds from one department to
any PPA of any department, without regard as to whether or
not the funds to be transferred are actually savings, is
unconstitutional.
Syjuco v. Abad –
(1) Lump sum appropriation is not prohibited by the
Constitution. Congress has traditionally allowed much
flexibility to the President in allocating funds pursuant to
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Departments, when performed and promulgated in the regular power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order
course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members
Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief who actually took part in the deliberations on the
Executive. issues in the case and voted thereon. (POWER TO
DISCIPLINE)
Kilusang Bayan v. Dominguez –
(1) An administrative officer has only such powers as are People v. Gacott, Jr. – Not all disciplinary cases need
expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the to be heard en banc. Only cases involving dismissal of
exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by judges of lower courts are specifically required to be
implication beyond what may be necessary for their just and decided by the Court en banc. When the penalty
reasonable execution. imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one
year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, the
(2) Administrative supervision: (a) generally oversee administrative matter may be decided in division.
operations; (b) require submission of reports; (c) take such
action as may be necessary for the proper performance of Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty
official functions; (d) review and pass upon budget proposals. days from the opening of each regular session of the
Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an
Lacson-Magallanes Co, Inc. v. Pano - The President may not annual report on the operations and activities of the
be deprived of his power to review the decision of executive
Judiciary. (ANNUAL REPORT)
officers. The right to appeal to the President reposes upon the
President’s power of control over the executive departments.
Control simply means the power of an officer to alter or Others:
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had Contempt powers
done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the Judicial privilege
judgment of the former for that of the latter.
City of Iligan v. Director of Lands – Powers vested to Heads
of Executive Departments may be directly exercised by the
President. The President has the power to grant portions of
public domain to any government entity like the City of Iligan
because he has control over the Director of Lands, who has
direct executive control in the lease, sale or any form of
concession or disposition of the land of public domain.
Ang-Angco v. Castillo – The power of control may be
exercised on the acts of the subordinate, but not on the actor
or agent himself of the act. The power to remove is inherent
in the power to appoint, but not with regard to those officers
or employees who belong to the classified service for as to
them the inherent power cannot be exercised.
M.S. MONES | 14
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
GAAs, particularly when the funds are grouped to form lump
sum accounts;
(2) Budget re-alignment, which is the power of heads of
offices to transfer funds within their respective offices,
ensures the fiscal autonomy of their offices and at the same
time maintains the separation of powers among the three
branches;
(3) Requirements for valid budget re-alignment: (a) law
authorizing the Pres/Sen Pres/HoR Speaker/CJ/ConComm
heads to transfer funds within their respective offices; (b)
funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective offices; (c) purpose is to
augment an item in the GAA for their respective offices.
(4) Cross-border augmentations are not allowed by the
Constitution. Funds appropriated for one office are prohibited
from crossing over to another office even in the guise of
augmentation of a deficient item.
(5) Savings cannot be used for an activity not included in the
appropriation. No funds from savings could be transferred
under DAP to augment deficient items not provided in the
GAA.
Philconsa v. Enriquez –
(1) Necessity of rea-alignment may be made by a member of
Congress but subject to approval of Senate Pres/Speaker. The
Senate President and HoR Speaker will have to see to it that:
(a) the funds to be realigned or transferred are actually savings
in the items of expenditures; and (b) The transfer/re-
alignment is for the purpose of augmenting the items of
expenditure.
(2) Legislative or congressional veto, a means whereby the
legislature can block or modify administrative action taken
under a statute, is subject to serious questions involving the
principle of separation of powers.
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
National Marketing Co v. Arca – President’s control power
covers GOCCs. Corporations owned or controlled by the
government, such as NAMARCO, partake of the nature of
government bureaus or offices, which are administratively
supervised by the Administrator of the Office of Economic
Coordination, who shall be responsible to the President of the
Philippines under whose control his functions shall be
exercised.
Gascon v. Arroyo – The Executive Secretary has the power
and authority to enter into the Agreement to Arbitrate with
ABS-CBN as he acted for and in behalf of the President when
he signed it.
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission – The power to
create fact finding committee is included in the take care
power of the President. The President’s power to conduct
investigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful execution of
laws – in this case, fundamental laws on public accountability
and transparency – is inherent in the President’s powers as the
Chief Executive. That the authority of the President to
conduct investigations and to create bodies to execute this
power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in
statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority.
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires
it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all
its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
M.S. MONES | 15
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(3) The intention of Congress to allow executive
impoundment, which is the refusal of the President to spend
funds made available by Congress, must be embodied and
manifested in another law and not in an appropriation law.
(4) Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing
members of Congress to perform executive function of
spending money appropriated are not in violation of
separation of powers because Congress itself had specified
the uses of the fund and the power given was merely
recommendatory to the President who could approve or
disapprove the recommendation.
Guingona v. Carague – Automatic budget allocation is
allowed by the Constitution. An appropriation may be
embodied in annual laws or in special provisions of law of
general or special application which appropriate public funds
for specific public purposes.
Osmena v. Orbos – Reversion to the General Fund applies
only to Special Fund collected in the exercise of power of
taxation. Having been levied for a special purpose of
stabilization of the sugar industry, the revenues collected
from the stabilization fees are to be treated as special fund,
the balance of which will be transferred to the general funds
of the Government after the purpose has been fulfilled or
abandoned.
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – Appropriation for a
road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is not
for a public purpose.
Aglipay v. Ruiz – Appropriation for special stamp issue is
valid as it is not specifically made to benefit a religious
denomination but for a pubic purpose. The benefit acquired
by the Church is incidental only.
Garces v. Estenzo - The questioned resolutions do not directly
or indirectly establish any religion, nor abridge religious
liberty, nor appropriate public money or property for the
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
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.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts
or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
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 the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within
three days, otherwise he shall be released. (MILITARY
POWERS)
Guazon v. De Villa – Areal Saturation Drive is within the
military powers of the President. There is nothing in the
Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief
Executive to order police actions to stop unabated criminality,
rising lawlessness, and alarming communist activities.
M.S. MONES | 16
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
benefit of any sect, priest or clergyman. The image was
purchased with private funds, not with tax money. The
construction of a waiting shed is entirely a secular matter.
Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix
within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
the Congress. (POWER OF TAXATION)
Sison v. Ancheta – Equality and uniformity in taxation means
that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class
shall be taxed at the same rate. It suffices that the laws operate
equally and uniformly on all persons under similar
circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same
manner, the conditions not being different, both in the
privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.
Province of Abra v. Hernando – To be exempt from RPT, the
property must be ADE used for religious purposes.
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sanlakas v. Reyes –
(1) Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and the power to declare martial law. In the exercise
of the power to suspend PWHC and the power to declare ML,
two conditions must concur: (a) an actual invasion or
rebellion; (b) public safety requires the exercise of such
power.
(2) Sequence of graduated powers: From most to least benign:
(a) calling out; (b) power to suspend PWHC; (c) declare ML.
(3) Section 18 does not expressly prohibit the President from
declaring a state of rebellion, as the power to declare a state
of rebellion emanates from her powers as Chief Executive.
Note that the Constitution vests the President not only with
Commander-in-Chief powers but with executive powers. In
calling out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of
rebellion is an utter superfluity. At most, it only gives notice
to the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces
may be called to prevent or suppress it. Perhaps the
declaration may wreak emotional effects upon the perceived
enemies of the State, even on the entire nation. But this
Court's mandate is to probe only into the legal consequences
of the declaration. This Court finds that such a declaration is
devoid of any legal significance. For all legal intents, the
declaration is deemed not written.
IBP v. Zamora – The only criterion for the exercise of the
calling-out power is that whenever it becomes necessary.
Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Section
18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President directed the
AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each
other for the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines
to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or
lawless violence. while the parties are in agreement that the
power exercised by the President is the power to call out the
armed forces, the Court is of the view that the power involved
may be no more than the maintenance of peace and order and
M.S. MONES | 17
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Abra Valley College v. Aquino – For tax exemption, actual,
direct, and exclusive use includes incidental use. The use of
the second floor of the building for residential purposes of the
(school) director and his family may be considered incidental
to the educational purpose but the lease of the first floor for
commercial purposes cannot be considered incidental to the
purpose of education.
Others:
Power to act as Board of Canvassers in election of President
Power to call a special election for P and VP
Power to judge P’s physical fitness to discharge functions of
the Presidency
Power to revoke or extend suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or declaration of martial law
Power to concur in Presidential amnesties
Power to concur in treaties or international agreements
Power to confirm certain appointments/ nominations made by
the President
Power of impeachment
Power relative to natural resources
Power to propose amendments to Consti
ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
promotion of the general welfare. For one, the realities on the
ground do not show that there exist a state of warfare,
widespread civil unrest or anarchy. The power of the
President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising
the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to
leading the State against external and internal threats to its
existence. The President is not only clothed with
extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also
tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of
maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic
tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the
horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in
fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any
way diminished by the relative want of an emergency
specified in the commander-in-chief provision.
David v. Arroyo –
(1) PP1017 is merely an exercise of President Arroyo’s
calling-out power for the armed forces to assist her in
preventing or suppressing lawless violence. President
Arroyo’s declaration of a "state of rebellion" was merely an
act declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest. In declaring a state of national emergency, President
Arroyo did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, a provision calling on the AFP to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. She also
relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision on the State’s
extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public
utility and business affected with public interest. Indeed, PP
1017 calls for the exercise of an awesome power. Obviously,
such Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless, without legal
significance, or not written, as in the case of Sanlakas.
(2) The assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it
grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate
"decrees." Legislative power is peculiarly within the province
of the Legislature. Section 1, Article VI categorically states
that "[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
M.S. MONES | 18
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House
of Representatives." To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a
state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify
President Arroyo’s exercise of legislative power by issuing
decrees.

(3) The President cannot enforce obedience to all decrees and

laws through the military. With respect to "laws," she cannot
call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as
customs laws, laws governing family and property relations,
laws on obligations and contracts and the like. She can only
order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent
to its duty to suppress lawless violence.

(4) Difference between the President’s authority to declare "a

state of national emergency" and to exercise emergency
powers. To the first, Section 18, Article VII grants the
President such power, hence, no legitimate constitutional
objection can be raised. But to the second, manifold
constitutional issues arise. It may be pointed out that the
second paragraph of Section 23, Article VI refers not only to
war but also to "other national emergency." If the intention of
the Framers of our Constitution was to withhold from the
President the authority to declare a "state of national
emergency" pursuant to Section 18, Article VII (calling-out
power) and grant it to Congress (like the declaration of the
existence of a state of war), then the Framers could have
provided so. Clearly, they did not intend that Congress should
first authorize the President before he can declare a "state of
national emergency." The logical conclusion then is that
President Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a state
of national emergency even in the absence of a Congressional
enactment.

But the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking

over of privately owned public utility or business affected
with public interest, is a different matter. This requires a
delegation from Congress.

M.S. MONES | 19
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
(5) When Section 17, Article XII states that the "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," it refers to Congress, not the President.
Emergency may include rebellion, economic crisis, pestilence
or epidemic, typhoon, flood, or other similar catastrophe of
nationwide proportions or effect. PP1017 does not authorize
the President during the emergency to temporarily take over
or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility
or business affected with public interest without authority
from Congress.

Gudani v. Senga - The President has constitutional authority

to prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying
before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as
commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a military
officer who defies such injunction is liable under military
justice. Any military officer whom the Congress summons to
testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President.
If the President is not so inclined, the President may be
commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the
military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law
of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully
execute.

Ruffy v. Chief of Staff – Court martial pertains to the President

in the exercise of his military powers. Courts martial are
simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by
the Congress for the President as Commander in chief to aid
him in properly commanding the army and navy and
enforcing discipline therein and utilize under his order those
of his authorized military representatives.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni – SC upheld the jurisdiction of military

commissions over war criminals and declared that the
promulgation of Executive Order No. 68, establishing a war

M.S. MONES | 20
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
crimes office, is an exercise of the President as Commander-
in-Chief.

Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2 – A military

commission has jurisdiction to hear cases filed against
civilians during the period of Martial Law.

Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 – Military court

martial does not have jurisdiction over civilians. Military
commissions or tribunals, by whatever name they are called,
are not courts within the Philippine judicial system. The
power and duty of interpreting the laws (as when an
individual should be considered to have violated the law) is
primarily a function of the judiciary.

Quilona v. General Court Martial – Court martial does not

apply to the members of the PNP. Criminal cases involving
PNP members shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
regular courts.

Lansang v. Garcia – The Supreme Court has the power to

inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus and to annul the same if no legal
ground could be established.

Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo –

(1) Although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court

the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that
the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review
powers, which is automatic rather than initiated. Only when
Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the
Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court
step in as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the
President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands

M.S. MONES | 21
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands
of the Court.

(2) Notably, under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987

Constitution, the Court has only 30 days from the filing of an
appropriate proceeding to review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Those 30 days,
fixed by the Constitution, should be enough for the Court to
fulfill its duty without pre-empting congressional action.
Section 18, Article VII, requires the President to report his
actions to Congress, in person or in writing, within 48 hours
of such proclamation or suspension. In turn, the Congress is
required to convene without need of a call within 24 hours
following the President’s proclamation or suspension.
Clearly, the Constitution calls for quick action on the part of
the Congress. Whatever form that action takes, therefore,
should give the Court sufficient time to fulfill its own mandate
to review the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension
within 30 days of its issuance.

If the Congress procrastinates or altogether fails to fulfill its

duty respecting the proclamation or suspension within the
short time expected of it, then the Court can step in, hear the
petitions challenging the President’s action, and ascertain if it
has a factual basis. If the Court finds none, then it can annul
the proclamation or the suspension. But what if the 30 days
given it by the Constitution proves inadequate? Justice Carpio
himself offers the answer in his dissent: that 30-day period
does not operate to divest this Court of its jurisdiction over
the case. The settled rule is that jurisdiction once acquired is
not lost until the case has been terminated.

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.

M.S. MONES | 22
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
(PARDONING POWER)

Torres v. Gonzales – A condition that the pardonee shall not

violate any law does not require conviction to constitute
violation thereof. A judicial pronouncement is not necessary
in determining whether the conditions in the pardon are
violated. The determination of whether there is a violations of
the conditions rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the
President.

Monsanto v. Factoran – Effects of absolute pardon. Pardon

looks to the future. It is not retrospective. It does not impose
upon the government any obligation to make reparation for
what has been suffered. It does not, therefore, restore a
convicted felon to public office forfeited by reason of
conviction.

People v. Salle, Jr. – The grant of pardon does not result in

the automatic withdrawal of the pending appeal. No pardon
may be extended before a judgment of conviction becomes
final. Where the judgment of conviction is still pending
appeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted. Before an
appellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask for the
withdrawal of his appeal.

Garcia v. Commission on Audit – The grant of pardon on the

administrative case based on the innocence of the pardonee
obliterates the administrative liability. Unless expressly
grounded on the person's innocence, pardon cannot bring
back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
The pardoned offender regains his eligibility for appointment
to public office which was forfeited by reason of the
conviction of the offense. The President's grant of executive
clemency to a person dismissed from his office pursuant to an
administrative case (but where the latter has been acquitted in
a criminal case based on the same facts alleged in the criminal

M.S. MONES | 23
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement and back
wages.

Llamas v. Orbos – Executive Clemency may be granted in

administrative cases. In granting the power of executive
clemency, the Constitution does not distinguish between
criminal and administrative cases. If the President can grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more reason can she
grant executive clemency in administrative cases, which are
clearly less serious than criminal offenses.

Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign

loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board
shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the
calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its
decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and
controlled corporations which would have the effect of
increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as
may be provided by law. (BORROWING POWER)

Constantino v. Cuisia –

(1) The bond-conversion scheme is not prohibited under

Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution. The Constitution
allows the President to contract and guarantee foreign loans.
It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of
loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are
more onerous than others. The only restriction that the
Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, is that the loans must be subject to
limitations provided by law. In this regard, we note that
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 245 as amended by Pres. Decree
(P.D.) No. 142, s. 1973, allows foreign loans to be contracted
in the form of, inter alia, bonds.

M.S. MONES | 24
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
(2) Contracts entered into pursuant to a buyback scheme are
valid. The authority to contract foreign loans and guarantees
without restrictions on payment or manner thereof coupled
with the availability of the corresponding
appropriations, must include the power to effect payments or
to make payments unavailing by either restructuring the loans
or even refusing to make any payment altogether. When taken
in the context of sovereign debts, a buyback is simply the
purchase by the sovereign issuer of its own debts at a
discount.

Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid

and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the Members of the Senate. (DIPLOMATIC POWER)

Pimentel v. Executive Secretary –

(1) Treaty making power of the President. The President is

the sole organ and authority in external relations, subject to
the power of Congress to concur to provide a check on the
executive in the field of foreign relations.

(2) The Senate does not ratify treaties, it only concurs. The
signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and
distinct steps in the treaty-making process. The signature is
primarily intended as a means of authenticating the
instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It
is usually performed by the state's authorized representative
in the diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is
the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative. It is
generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head
of the state or of the government.

(3) The signature does not signify the final consent of the state
to the treaty. It is the ratification that binds the state to the
provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome Statute itself requires
that the signature of the representatives of the states be subject
to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
M.S. MONES | 25
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Ratification is the act by which the provisions of a treaty are
formally confirmed and approved by a State. By ratifying a
treaty signed in its behalf, a state expresses its willingness to
be bound by the provisions of such treaty. the President has
the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the
Philippine representative whether or not to ratify the same.

(4) It is within the authority of the President to refuse to

submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for
its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a
state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a
serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is
within the competence of the President alone, which cannot
be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This
Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the
President in the performance of his official duties.

Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading –

(1) Executive agreements do not need the concurrence of the

Senate. The concurrence of the House of Congress is required
by our fundamental law in the making of treaties which are
however distinct and different from executive agreements
which may be validly entered without such concurrence.

(2) Treaties are formal documents which require ratification

with the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. Executive agreements
become binding through executive action without the need of
a vote by the Senate or by Congress.

(3) International agreements involving political issues or

changes of national policy and those involving international
arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form
of treaties. But international agreements embodying
adjustments of detail carrying out well-established national
policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a
more or less temporary nature usually take the form of
executive agreements.

M.S. MONES | 26
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Bayan Muna v. Romulo –

(1) E/N BFO-028-03––be it viewed as the Non-Surrender

Agreement itself, or as an integral instrument of acceptance
thereof or as consent to be bound––is a recognized mode of
concluding a legally binding international written contract
among nations. An exchange of notes falls "into the category
of inter-governmental agreements," which is an
internationally accepted form of international agreement. the
terms "exchange of notes" and "executive agreements" have
been used interchangeably, exchange of notes being
considered a form of executive agreement that becomes
binding through executive action. On the other hand,
executive agreements concluded by the President "sometimes
take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of
more formal documents denominated ‘agreements’ or
‘protocols.’"

(2) Each State has the option on the matter of which

international agreement format would be convenient to serve
its interest. Senate concurrence is not required. The
categorization of subject matters that may be covered by
international agreements mentioned in Eastern Sea
Trading is not cast in stone. One type of executive agreement
is a treaty-authorized or a treaty-implementing executive
agreement, which necessarily would cover the same matters
subject of the underlying treaty. Save for the situation and
matters contemplated in Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the
Constitution –– when a treaty is required, the Constitution
does not classify any subject, like that involving political
issues, to be in the form of, and ratified as, a treaty. What the
Constitution merely prescribes is that treaties need the
concurrence of the Senate by a vote defined therein to
complete the ratification process.

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress within

thirty days from the opening of every regular session, as the
basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of
expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts

M.S. MONES | 27
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
from existing and proposed revenue measures.
(BUDGETARY POWER)

Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the

opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at
any other time. (INFORMING POWER)

Others:

Call Congress to a special session

Power to approve or veto bills

Consent to deputation of government personnel by the

COMELEC

To discipline such deputies

By delegation from Congress, emergency powers and tariff

powers

General supervision over local governments and autonomous

regional governments

Section 11. A Senator or Member of the HoR shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment,
be privileged from arrest while 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. (PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST/OF
SPEECH AND DEBATE)
Session – entire period from its initial convening until its final
adjournment
PRIVILEGES/IMMUNITY
Section 6. The President shall have an official residence. The
salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be
determined by law and shall not be decreased during their
tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during
which such increase was approved. x x x (OFFICIAL
RESIDENCE AND SALARY)
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of
various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5
hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary
when it undermines the security of tenure of its
Members.

M.S. MONES | 28
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Reqts of privilege of speech and debate:
(1) Remarks must be made while the legislature or the
legislative committee is in session;
(2) They must be made in connection with the discharge of
official duties
People v. Jalosjos – A Senator or Member of the HoR may be
arrested, even when the House is in session, for crimes
punishable by a penalty of imprisonment for more than 6
years.
Trillanes v. Pimentel - Petitioner illustrates that Jalosjos was
charged with crimes involving moral turpitude, i.e., two
counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of
lasciviousness, whereas he is indicted for coup d’etat which
is regarded as a "political offense." However, within the class
of offenses covered by the stated range of imposable
penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political
complexion of or moral turpitude involved in the crime
charged.
Jimenez v. Cabangcang – Parliamentary immunity of speech
refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance
of their official functions and other acts performed by
Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises
housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties.
Osmena v. Pendatun – (1) Members of Congress may be held
liable by the House to which they belong. Although exempt
from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in
Congress, the members of the Congress may be questioned in
Congress itself. Members of the Congress could be censured,
committed to prison, suspended or even expelled by the votes
of their colleagues; (2) Speeches attacking the President as
disorderly behavior is a political question.
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago – Courts do not interfere with the
legislature or its members in the manner they perform their
functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any
clam of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Others:
Immunity from suit – The President, during his tenure of
office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or
criminal case.
Soliven v. Makasiar – The privilege of immunity from suit
pertains to the President by virtue of office and may be
invoked by the holder of the office. There is nothing which
prohibits the President to waive this privilege.
Estrada v. Desierto –
(1) After his tenure, the Chief Executive cannot invoke
immunity from suit for civil damages arising out of acts done
by him while he was President which were not performed in
the exercise of official duties.
(2) The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Estrada
cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be
convicted in the impeachment proceedings. When
impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the
resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil
cases may already be filed against him.
(3) By no stretch of the imagination can the crimes of plunder,
bribery, and graft and corruption, especially plunder which
carries the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of
immunity of a non-sitting president. It will be anomalous to
hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for
unlawful acts and conditions. The rule is that unlawful acts of
public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who
acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same
footing as any trespasser.
Gloria v. CA – Even if DECS Secretary is the alter ego of the
President, he cannot invoke presidential immunity because it
is personal to the holder of office.
Executive Privilege
Neri v. Senate Committee –
ARTICLE VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced
by the legislature below the amount appropriated for
the previous year and, after approval, shall be
automatically and regularly released.
Bengzon v. Drilon – The veto power cannot be
exercised to deprive the Supreme Court its fiscal
autonomy. The fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the
Judiciary, the CSC, the COA, the COMELEC, and the
Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of
full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources
with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require.
Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges
of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their
continuance in office, their salary shall not be
decreased.
Nitafan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue –
Salaries of judges are subject to tax. The clear intent
of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the
proposed express grant of exemption from payment of
income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "give
substance to equality among the three branches of
Government.”
Others:
Judicial Privilege
M.S. MONES | 29
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
of the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does
not destroy the privilege. Senate v. Ermita -

M.S. MONES | 30

Article XI
Ombudsman
Section 5. There is hereby created the
independent Office of the Ombudsman,
composed of the Ombudsman to be
known as Tanodbayan, one overall
Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A
separate Deputy for the military
establishment may likewise be
appointed.
Section 8. The Ombudsman and his
Deputies shall be natural-born citizens
of the Philippines, and at the time of
their appointment, at least forty years
old, of recognized probity and
independence, and members of the
Philippine Bar, and must not have been
candidates for any elective office in the
immediately preceding election. The
Ombudsman must have for ten years or
more been a judge or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject
to the same disqualifications and
prohibitions as provided for in Section 2
of Article IX-A of this Constitution.
BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)
Article IX-B Article IX-C Article IX-D
Civil Service Commission Commission on Elections Commission on Audit
Composition and Qualifications
Section 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Section 1. (1) There shall be a Commission
administered by the Civil Service Elections composed of a Chairman and six on Audit composed of a Chairman and two
Commission composed of a Chairman and Commissioners who shall be natural-born Commissioners, who shall be natural-born
two Commissioners who shall be natural- citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
born citizens of the Philippines and, at the their appointment, at least thirty-five years of of their appointment, at least thirty-five
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five age, holders of a college degree, and must not years of age, certified public accountants
years of age, with proven capacity for public have been candidates for any elective position with not less than ten years of auditing
administration, and must not have been in the immediately preceding elections. experience, or members of the Philippine
candidates for any elective position in the However, a majority thereof, including the Bar who have been engaged in the practice
elections immediately preceding their Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine of law for at least ten years, and must not
appointment. Bar who have been engaged in the practice of have been candidates for any elective
law for at least ten years. position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment. At no time
shall all Members of the Commission
belong to the same profession.
M.S. MONES | 31
 BEST POLI BAR EVER 2020_21
Gabriel Doctrines (according to Bar Bulletin No. 31, s. 2022)

Article XI Article IX-B Article IX-C Article IX-D

Ombudsman Civil Service Commission Commission on Elections Commission on Audit

Disqualifications/Prohibitions
Article VII, Section 13. x x x
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations
and their subsidiaries.

Article IX-A, Section 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control of any business which in any way be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly,
in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.

Article XI, Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed
from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Article XI, Section 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or
controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the
Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.
Selection
Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Section 1. (2) The Chairman and the Section 1. (2) The Chairman and the Section 1. (2) The Chairman and the
Deputies shall be appointed by the Commissioners shall be appointed by the Commissioners shall be appointed by the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President from a list of at least six President with the consent of the President with the consent of the Commission President with the consent of the
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Commission on Appointments for a term of on Appointments for a term of seven years Commission on Appointments for a term of
Bar Council, and from a list of three seven years without reappointment. Of without reappointment. Of those first seven years without reappointment. Of
nominees for every vacancy thereafter. those first appointed, the Chairman shall appointed, three Members shall hold office for those first appointed, the Chairman shall
Such appointments shall require no hold office for seven years, a Commissioner seven years, two Members for five years, and hold office for seven years, one
confirmation. All vacancies shall be for five years, and another Commissioner the last Members for three years, without Commissioner for five years, and the other
filled within three months after they for three years, without reappointment. reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy Commissioner for three years, without
occur. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only shall be only for the unexpired term of the reappointment. Appointment to any
for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In predecessor. In no case shall any Member be vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
no case shall any Member be appointed or appointed or designated in a temporary or portion of the term of the predecessor. In no
designated in a temporary or acting acting capacity. case shall any Member be appointed or
capacity. designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.

M.S. MONES | 32