QUIZ# 2
1) In the General Appropriations Act pf 2017, Congress appropriated P500,000,000
for “general fund adjustment for operational and special requirements as
indicated in the act.” Among the several uses of the fund was the adjustment of
pension of retired justices as authorized by an earlier law passed by Congress.
When the act was presented to President Duterte on August 18, 2017 he vetoed
the provision regarding the use of the fund for adjustment of the pension of the
justices. He made the veto two days before he left for Singapore on September
23, 2017. Is the veto valid and effective?
---No. The President is only given 30 days from receipt of the bill to exercise his
veto power. Therefore, his exercise of veto power in the case at bar is not
anymore valid as 30 days have lapsed already. The moment he failed to
exercise such, the bill lapses into law. Even assuming that the period to veto has
not yet lapsed, the President cannot just veto a provision. Generally, the
President can only veto an item. Exceptions do not apply as it is not a rider, it is
not an unconstitutional or an inappropriate provision and it does not block any
executive action.
2) On September 4, 2016, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 55 “declaring
a state of national emergency on account of lawless violence in Mindanao” and
commanding the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police to undertake such measures as may be permitted by the Constitution and
existing laws to suppress any and all forms of lawless violence in Mindanao.
Many Muslim youth groups opposed the declaration and they staged a huge
rally in the Freedom Park in Davao City. President Duterte gave an order to the
Chief of Police of Davao City to arrest the leaders of the rally because the rally
disturbed the peace and order of the city and may incite people to rebellion. The
Office of the President justified the arrest of the rally leaders under Proclamation
No. 55 and by virtue of the emergency powers of the President over the entire
Mindanao. The arrest happened on the 25th day after the issuance of
Proclamation No. 55. Are the actions of the President constitutional?
---The ordering of arrest is not valid because the President is not exercising
emergency powers yet. Moreover, there is no need for permit in order for the
people to rally in the Freedom Park.
Concept of Residual Powers
Power to Appoint by the President
NOTE: Be careful to watch out for the year for Presidential election or when is the
election year for the President. Year 2016, for example is the election year for the
President so the 2 months ban does not apply because the 2-months ban apply only
once the term of the President is ending.
*Arturo de Castro – The 2-months ban does not apply in this case because
How many days does the Constitution allow to fill up the vacancy in the Supreme Court?
---90 days from occurrence of the vacancy. Unlike in lower courts, from Court of Appeals
down, where the 90 days is counted from the date of receipt of the nominees by the JBC.
Thus, there are different reckoning dates and it is faster to fill up a vacancy in the
Supreme Court.
July 13, 2019
Why is the 2 months-ban does not apply to the Justices of the Supreme Court?
---The 2 months-ban only applies to the appointment of the President in the executive
department but not in the judiciary because it was not specifically provided by the
Constitution. The intention of the framers was that the 2 months-ban should not apply to
the Supreme Court Justices but only to the members of the executive branch. (NOTE: it
was not even cleared if this decision applies to appointments in the lower courts below.)
*Valenzuela vs Villarta- what appointed is being contested in this case? Appointed in the
RTC.
*Pobre vs Mendieta
What are the facts of this case?
---There was a vacancy during the term that was not yet finished. The issue here is
whether the appointment of Medieta is valid considering that the petitioner alleges that
she is more qualified as she is the more senior.
Why does the next-in-rank rule violate the nature of the power of the President to appoint
---It restricts the power to the President to appoint. Power to appoint of the President is
discretionary. Thus, if there are 3 applicants, the President has the right to choose to
appoint one who only has a minimum requirement and not better qualified since this
power to appoint is discretionary on the part of the President. (NOTE: Discretion depends
on wisdom). Thus, the next-in-rank rule is not absolute.
Can the Civil Service not declare it as invalid appointment since it is the guardian of the
quality of the appointments made?
---No. The CSC can only check the qualifications but cannot change the nature of the
appointment. CSC’s role is only limited to determining whether the appointee has the
minimum qualifications. CSC is only there to make sure that the appointee meets the
minimum, (based on merit and fitness) but that’s it.
-Is the President allowed to make appointments 2 months before the next presidential
elections?
Ad Interim and Regular Appointments
What is the difference between ad interim and regular appointments?
---Ad Interim appointments are those appointments by the President when the Congress
was not in session, while the Regular Appointments are the appointments of the
President when the Congress was in session.
The Commissioner of the BOC was appointed by the President on June 26, 2018. Can he
assume immediately after taking his oath?
---Yes. The Commission of the BOC was not included in the list of officers that have to be
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Supposed he is included in the list that needs confirmation by the CA, can he assume
immediately?
If the appointment is ad interim, then he can assume immediately. However, if the
appointment is regular, then his appointment his only effective upon the confirmation by
the CA. IN the present case, the appointment was done on June 26 and the Congress
was not in session. Therefore, it was an ad interim appointment. Thus, he can assume
immediately after taking his oath.
NOTE: The relevance of the distinction between regular and ad interim appointment
matters only when the appointment needs confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments (CA), and when for purposes of assumption. Thus, do not anymore
question if the appointment is valid, because it is possible that the appointment is valid
because he has all the qualifications but he cannot yet assume because it is a regular
appointment that needs confirmation by the CA.
The Commissioner of the CHR was appointed by the President on August 4, 2018. Can
he assume immediately after taking his oath of office? (*Bautista vs Salonga)
---He can assume immediately because the Commissioner of the CHR is not one of the
positions/appointments that needs confirmation by the CA. Those positions/
appointments that require confirmation only include 1) the heads of the Executive
Department, 2) positions in the Military from rank colonel to naval captain, 3)
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and 4) those as provided in the
Constitution such as heads of the sectoral representations and heads of the Con-Com
The Secretary of DOTC was appointed by the President on August 10, 2018, can he
assume immediately after taking his oath of office? Will your answer be the same if the
appointment was made on June 15, 2018?
---He cannot assume immediately because the appointment is regular. It is regular
because the appointment was made on August 10, when the Congress was already on
session.
When is the Congress in session?
---Congress starts session during SONA (4th Monday of July). Thus, before SONA, they
are mandatorily in recess.
NOTE: SONA Day is the start of the session by Congress.
*Aytona vs Castillo
Was the act of President GMA valid in cancelling all ad interim appointments?
---
President Duterte appointed his son-in-law, Atty. Carpio, as Justice of the Court of
Appeals, from the list submitted by the JBC, on April 23, 2022. Is the appointment valid?
---The Justice of Court of Appeals is not included in the list of prohibited positions (the
President cannot appoint). Prohibited positions only include Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, Deputies and their assistants, Commissioners, GOCCs. Positions in
the Judiciary are not included in the prohibited positions.
How about appointments made by the local chief executives 2 months before expiration
of the terms? Valid?
---The Appointment is valid. The prohibition is only for the President and not for the local
chief executives.
Power of Removal
NOTE: Power to appoint is also the power of removal.
Memorandum Circular dated August 22, 2016 (President Duterte directed all Presidential
appointees to tender their unqualified courtesy resignations within 7 days from the date of
the circular
---Courtesy Resignation of Presidential Appointees
---Take note of those who are exempted from the coverage
---Among those exempted are the Career officials as defined by Civil Service Laws, Rules
and Regulations
---Judiciary and officials of the constitutional offices are also exempted
How do you know that an official is a career official?
NOTE: If you know the exemption, then President Duterte cannot demand for courtesy
resignation of those career officials.
---A career official is defined by the Civil Service Law. Its qualifications are determined by
the Civil Service based on their merit and fitness.
How do you determine merit and fitness?
---through competitive exams followed by interviews. The promotion is also based on
merit and fitness.
Sample Question
Is the action of the Secretary of DOJ in reversing the dismissal of the case valid?
---The dismissal is valid because the findings only focus on the …
President Duterte can order a subordinate to change the findings by virtue of his power of
control.
What is the difference between power of control and power of supervision?
---Power of control is the capacity to alter, modify, set aside or nullify acts of a
subordinate and substitute his own. On the other hand, power of supervision only
involves checking if the act of the subordinate is in accordance with the law and the rules
but has no power to substitute his own judgment.
What is the scope of the President’s control?
---
Power of Control
Can DOJ be dismissed by the President?
---No question that he is a presidential appointee. Being a career official, the dismissal is
not valid because it violates his security of tenure.
NOTE: Whether or not an individual can be dismissed depends on whether he is a career
official since career officials have security of tenure. Thus, career officials cannot be
dismissed without 1) just cause or valid cause and 2) due process.
NOTE: Not all Presidential appointees are dismissible by the President because most
Presidential appointees have security of tenure since some are career officials.
NOTE: Cabinet Secretaries different from all the other career officials who are
Presidential appointees in the sense that they are alter egos of the President, serving
only at his pleasure. They do not have a fixed term. Their security of tenure only depends
on the trust and confidence of the President, thus, the President can automatically
dismiss a member from the Cabinet the moment there is lost of trust and confidence and
this cannot anymore be questioned.
Chairman of NIRC was found guilty of sexual harassment by the Office of the President,
after an investigation that complied with due process. Is his dismissal from service valid?
(this case is found in the Nachura)
---If the law only requires suspension but he was dismissed from service for such
violation then there is violation of his security of tenure.
Suppose the President dismissed the Deputy Ombudsman. Is the dismissal valid?
---No. Only the Ombudsman can dismiss the Deputy Ombudsman, and not the President.
This is according to the *case of Emilio Gonzales III. However, also take note the *case of
Karandang
NOTE: The President can only dismiss the prosecutor but not the Deputy Ombdusman.
CESO Officers
NOTE: Lawyers, by virtue of a law which is RA No. 1080, are automatically eligible for
civil service. But if the lawyer wants to become a head of the office, he needs to have a
CESO eligibility. You cannot be a head of the Office without the CESO eligibility even if
you are civil service eligible.
CESO – Career Executive Service Officer
NOTE: CESO officers have higher eligibility than the career officials.
*PAO case
- All prosecutors and PAO lawyers are now exempted from the CESO requirement
*CESO I – the highest ranking
NOTE: If the office requires CESO III but your CESO eligibility is only CESO IV, you are
not qualified. Thus, if you are not qualified, your appointment is only temporary.
NOTE: You can have a permanent position if you meet ALL the qualifications but only
temporary if you do not meet all the qualifications.
Power of Control
Can the President organize the officers under the executive department?
---Yes.
How will you know that the action of the reorganization by the President is tainted with
bad faith?
---It is tainted in bad faith if he is not really after streamlining because the main purpose
for reorganizing is to streamline. There is bad faith, for example, when you dismissed
those currently occupying certain positions but still you hired new people to be in those
positions.
Alter Ego Principle
Explain the doctrine of qualified political agency
---
Under this doctrine, can a Cabinet Member invoke presidential immunity?
--- No. Only the President is immune from suit. The Cabinet Secretaries do not enjoy
such privilege. What they can enjoy is only executive privilege if claimed by the President
on their behalf (as shown in the *case of Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability)
Power of General Supervision (Marti’s recit---listen to recording)
NOTE: In so far as the local governments are concerned, the Presdient only exercises
general supervision.
A complaint was filed against Mayor Butod before DILG for grave abuse of authority and
sexual harassment. After extensive investigation, DILG found the mayor guilty and
imposed on him a penalty of 2 months suspension. The President affirmed the decision of
DILG. Is the order of suspension valid?
---Yes. The President only exercises general supervision.
Is imposition of sanction and penalty goes against the principle of general supervision
over local government?
---No. In the *case of Ganzon vs Santos, it was decided here that even though the
President only exercises general supervision of the local government, it does not
preclude the power to impose sanction if there is a valid case filed and there is
compliance with due process.
Take note of these cases in so far as the general supervision of local government is
concerned:
*Pimentel vs Aguirre
*Zaldy Ampatuan vs Puno
*Province of Negros Occidental vs Commissioner of Audit – if the local chief executive
will approve of the grant of additional compensation and healthcare and insurance
benefits, it does not require any approval from the President anymore.
State of Emergency
President GMA placed Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City under a state of
emergency. She also issued Administrative Order No. 273 and 273-A delegating the
supervision of ARMM to the DILG. Are these orders valid?
---Yes. These orders are valid since it is not an exercise of control but only that of the
power of supervision, thus, there is no violation.
Is there a priority between the 3 powers (Calling Out Powers, Martial Law Powers and
Emergency Powers), that the President has to undergo exercising this power first over
the other? In other words, is there an order of priority?
---No. Exercise of powers depends on the circumstances of each case, as they have their
own requisites or conditions and the discretion of the President. (*Lagman vs Mediodia)
Military Powers of the President
What are the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief
---
As a law student, can you file a case in court questioning the declaration of Martial Law in
Mindanao even though you are not from Mindanao?
---Yes. The declaration of martial law involves public safety and security and the
Constitution provides that any citizen can question the validity of the declaration.
Can you question it in court even before the review being made by Congress? (Can the
Court make a review even before the Congress makes its own review)
---Yes. Review by the Court is different and independent of the review of the Congress.
When the Supreme Court makes the review, the test will be sufficiency of the factual
basis for the declaration of martial law on ground of either 1) rebellion and public safety
requires it or 2) invasion and public safety requires it.
NOTE: That public safety requires it is not a 3rd ground for the declaration. It only needs
to accompany either of the two grounds which are rebellion and invasion. It only modifies
the two grounds. Thus, it is possible that there is rebellion but the President will not
declare martial law because public safety does not require it. PANELO is not right in
saying that there is a 3rd ground.
What are the two actions that Congress can make after the declaration of martial law?
---It can either extend or revoke the declaration. Nothing in the Constitution requires that
Congress must affirm. Affirmation by it is only a surplusage. Whether or not it affirms, the
declaration remains valid.
NOTE: Review of Congress is more extensive than that of the Supreme Court because
Congress can consider all the factors before, during and after the declaration. They can
even review as of the wisdom of the timing and as of the wisdom of the choices made by
the President. However, the Supreme Court is only limited to one issue. It has no power
to review the wisdom of the timing (which is a political question) and the wisdom of the
choice made between which one to exercise of the 3 powers of the Commander-in-Chief.
The Supreme Court is only limited to reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis
(whether there is really sufficient factual basis for invasion or rebellion).
Suppose Congress does not want to hold session in order to review the declaration of the
President, is it valid?
---Yes. You cannot file a case for mandamus to compel Congress to hold a session.
Why did Supreme Court agree to the extension of the declaration of the martial law (refer
to the majority opinion of the case). Why is the extension longer than the original period
of martial law, implying that there is a more serious rebellion now compared to the time it
was declared?
---
In the case of Lagman vs Mediodia, is there a requirement for an absolute certain of facts
for the declaration of martial law?
---No need for the absolute correctness of certain set of facts. Only a determination of
probable cause is needed. (NOTE: The Supreme Court is more lax this time)
Why did Leonen disagree?
---He argued that there is an act of terrorism which is not a ground for the declaration of
martial law and which requires a more thoughtful action. He explained the distinction
between rebellion and terrorism.
NOTE: There were a lot of threats from the other groups considered in the extension, but
such threats were not existent and considered during the original proclamation.
Commander-in-Chief Clause
*Gudanni vs Sayna
Is the order of the President that the two military men (the General and the Colonel) will
not testify President valid (Marbe’s recit)
---Yes. It is valid because the President, as the Commander-in-Chief has power of control
over Gudanni
Can Congress also insist that the two military men can appear under their power of
investigation in aid of legislation?
---Yes. Under Sec. 21 on investigation in aid of legislation, consent of the President is not
needed. Therefore, Congress can insist that the two military officers will testify.
What if there is a deadlock, wherein the Congress insists that these two particular
persons need to testify but the President insists that they cannot, then Supreme Court
has to decide.
Review of the Declaration
NOTE: The Court will not wait for Congress to act or finish its review. It must act
independently. Also, it is stated in the Constitution that once the petition is filed, the Court
will take action.
What are the safeguards/conditions/limitations in the Constitution to make sure the
President will not abuse its powers under Sec. 18?
---Congress has the power to revoke the declaration
---The declaration must only be based on either of the two grounds which are rebellion
and invasion and in either, public safety requires the declaration of martial law.
---The declaration must only be for a period of 60 days and the discretion to extend it
belongs to the Congress
---The President has to report to Congress the declaration either in person or in writing
Can the extension granted by Congress be longer than 60 days?
---Yes, as decided in the martial law extension cases.
What are the limitations by which the declaration of martial law or the suspension be
terminated?
1) Expiration of the 60-day period
2) Revocation by Congress
3) Declaration by Court
4) Termination by the President (he can do this even before the expiration of
the 60-day period)
Calling Out Powers
Is the power of the President subject to judicial review?
---Yes. It is a judgment call on the President if it is really needed to suppress violence.
Calling out power – the power of the President to call on the Military to prevent or
suppress all lawless violence
President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1017, declaring a state of national emergency.
She also issued General Order No. 5 to implement PP 1017. In it, it is stated that the
military should take only the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to
suppress and prevent acts of lawless violence. Is PP 1017 constitutional? How about
General Order No. 5?
---According to *David vs Arroyo, PP 1017 is constitutional in so far as the calling out
powers is concerned. The President can declare state of national emergency, she does
not yet exercise emergency powers. Exercise of emergency powers does not come
automatically even when the President declares a state of national emergency. The
portion in PP 1017 which provides that the Military shall follow all laws and regulations
promulgated by the President is unconstitutional because the President has no power to
enact or promulgate laws. But insofar as the declaration of the state of national
emergency, it is constitutional as it is still within her administrative function to describe
what is happening in a specific locality or specific place, under the Local Government
Code.
Under what conditions can the President exercise emergency powers?
---There is declaration of state of national emergency (state of rebellion, state of calamity,
etc.)
---Congress must provide it to the President, as per Article VI, Sec. 23(2)

*Republic of the Philippines vs Zamora (Calling out powers)
Difference between state of national emergency and the exercise of emergency powers
(*David vs Arroyo)
State of Rebellion
Is Proclamation No. 427 and GO No. 4 constitutional?
---Yes. They are exercise of calling out powers.
State of Rebellion vs State of National Emergency
---Proclamation No. 427 and GO No. 4 (Sanlakas vs Reyes) are mainly based on her
power as Chief Executive and her calling out powers.
---Presidential Proclamation 1017 and GO No. 5 (David v. Arroyo) are based on her
calling out powers and under Article XII, Sec. 17. Under Article XII, Sec. 17, it requires
the grant of Congress because it is an exercise already of emergency powers. Thus, PP
1017 is not totally constitutional but only on the first part on its declaration of state of
national emergency but not the portion that refers to Article XII, Sec. 17.
Effect of Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Edmer’s recit)
President Duterte proclaimed martial law. A complaint was filed at the police station
against Jose for killing Juan. After 40 hours of detention of Jose in said station, lawyer of
Jose filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of Jose. If you were the judge,
are you going to release Jose? NOTE: The killing in the present case is not pursuant to
rebellion.
---Yes. The crime is not pursuant to rebellion and so there is no suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Therefore, the period of 72 hours of detention does
not apply. Thus, Jose can only be detained for 36 hours and should be released.
NOTE: If there is suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
government only has a maximum of 72 hours to detain the accused, without filing the
case. Otherwise, the government can only detain the accused for 36 hours.
NOTE: If the killing is pursuant to rebellion but the suspension is only Mindanao and he
was arrested in Iloilo City, then there is no suspension of the privilege of the writ.
NOTE: If there is no mention that the writ was suspended, and that there is only a
declaration of martial law, it does not follow that that the writ is also suspended. There
should be a separate proclamation for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
(Same case as above) Suppose the petition (for habeas corpus) was filed after only 5
hours of detention, will it make a difference in your answer?
---Yes. Considering that the arrest is not valid. The arrest was made two days after the
crime was committed. Therefore, the police have no personal knowledge and they are not
in hot pursuit, which makes the arrest not valid. Thus, Article 125 does not apply.
Article 125 of RPC (12 hrs, 18 hrs and 36 hrs)- can only be invoked by the government if
the following two requisites are present:
1) arrest is valid, and
2) arrest is warrantless
If any of the two requirements is not present, Article 125 will not apply.
(Same case as above) Suppose the petition (for habeas corpus) was filed after 73 hours
of detention, will your answer be different?
---Yes. Once it exceeds more than 72 hours, it does not anymore matter whether it is
pursuant to rebellion or not or pursuant to Article 125. The detainee has to be released.
*72 hours
---this is the maximum time or period allowed to detain a person if
---this applies if offense is pursuant to rebellion or invasion
Suppose the privilege of the writ is suspended, and crime committed is rape. Will the
petition for habeas corpus be granted if filed after 30 hours of detention?
---Qualify your answer here if the arrest is valid or not. If the arrest is valid, Article 125
applies and you cannot release because the 36 hours have not yet lapsed but if the arrest
is not valid, you can already release because Article 125 does not apply.
What if the crime committed is rebellion and the warrantless arrest is not valid and
petition was filed after 40 hours of detention, will it be granted?
---No. The crime is rebellion, thus, the government can detain up to 72 hours.
NOTE: If the crime is pursuant to rebellion or invasion, it does not matter whether the
arrest is valid or not. The government can detain you for a maximum of 72 hours. This is
actually the purpose for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus because the very
survival of the state is at stake or the government is at stake. However, the situation will
be different if the crime committed is not rebellion or invasion as the legality of the arrest
matters.
Calling Out Powers
Can the provincial governor validly exercise calling out powers (Tan case)
---No.
Olaguer doctrine – provides that even during martial law, civilians cannot be tried by a
military tribunal. Thus any conviction by the military tribunal will be null and void as it is
unconstitutional. But once you are acquitted by the military tribunal, you will be protected
under the Operative Fact Doctrine in order to prevent double jeopardy.
What are the ways through which proclamation of martial law or suspension of privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus be terminated?
---
Right to Bail
Pedro was validly arrested by the police for the crime of rebellion during the period when
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended…
---No. Right to bail cannot be granted/ issued in the first 72 hours. Right to bail applies
only once the case against accused has been filed in court.
Emergency Powers (Article VI, Sec. 23(2))
- Congress provides for the limitations of the grant of emergency powers.
- At present does the President Duterte exercise emergency powers?
No.
The Pardoning Power of the President
- Pardon
- Amnesty
- Commutation
- Reprieve parole
What are the limitations to this power of the President?
---the President cannot pardon those who committed election offenses
---the President can only pardon after final conviction
NOTE: Be careful of a situation that involves an admin case and a criminal case (e.g.
malversation of public funds). If found guilty in the administrative case, the President can
grant pardon. If found guilty in the criminal case, the President can also grant pardon. But
insofar as the administrative case, pardon can be granted only if the accused is an
employee of the Executive Department. If he/she is an employee of the Legislative or the
Judiciary Department, the President cannot grant pardon in the admin case. In the
criminal case, the President can grant pardon regardless of which department the
accused belongs.
Comparing *Torres vs Gonzales with *Monsanto v. Factoran
*Monsanto vs Factoran
---The moment you are granted pardon after conviction, it restores your eligibility but you
cannot automatically return to your previous position but you may reapply again and be
reappointed.
*Torres vs Gonzales
---In this case, when pardon was granted, the accused was automatically reinstated to
her former post as principal. She was found guilty in her administrative case but was
acquitted from her criminal case. Thus, when pardon was granted after conviction in her
administrative case, her pardon restored her to her former post because of her acquittal
in her criminal case.
*People vs Salle, Jr.
---Pardon does not restore one to a former post. He/she can only reapply for his/her
previous post undergoing the same and usual process.
*Garcia vs COA
Jose was found administratively liable and was suspended for 90 days. Can the
President grant him pardon?
---Yes.
*Kapunan case
---Kapunan was not eligible for amnesty.
Borrowing Powers of the President
- This is reinforced by Article XII, Sec. 21
- Information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the government shall be
made available to the public.
RA No. 4860
- This law authorizes the President to obtain foreign loans and credit, reinforcing
the borrowing power of the government. Until now, this law has not been
repealed yet.
NOTE: The borrowing power of the President is not only a statutory grant but also a
Constitutional grant (There is a Constitutional provision providing for his powers to
borrow.)
- Does Congress have to be consulted by the President when he contracts or
guarantees foreign loans that increases foreign debt?
---Positive view: Yes. Article VI, Sec. 24 provides for it, that Congress should
approved or regulate it.
---Negative view: No. It is the Monetary Board that checks and Congress can
only provide for the limitation.
Foreign Affairs Power
a. Treaty making power
- If treaty is not yet ratified by the Senate, it is a valid treaty or not?
--Yes. It is valid, although it is not only effective or in force until ratified or
confirmed by the Senate.
- Initiating the process of entering into a treaty with another state is exclusively
within the power of the Executive
- Difference between treaties and executive agreements
---As far as foreign countries and international laws are concerned, no difference
between treaties and executive agreements because they are really enforceable
in the point of view of the international law. But in terms of the point of view of
the domestic law, enforceability depends on whether or not it is a treaty or an
executive agreement because of the requirement of confirmation.
Ratification by the Senate
- Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
- Even if not ratified by the US Senate, it is binding because we cannot require the
US the same process as we do
Deportation vs Extradition
- What are the 2 ways by which deportation may be effected?
- Difference between deportation and extradition
---Deportation is unilateral (meaning on the own initiative of the country),
while extradition is always bilateral or multilateral because of the treaty. You
cannot extradite someone without a treaty. Deportation does not necessarily
require a commission of a crime. It can be because of persona non grata (or a
person that is not welcome or unacceptable). When it comes to extradition, one
can only be extradited for an offense that is listed in the treaty. This is called the
Doctrine of Specialty (there are special crimes that are listed)
Ways to Deport
1) By order of the President
2) By order of the Commissioner of Immigration upon the recommendation of the
Board of Commissioners
NOTE: The President’s power to investigate may be delegated to the Deportation Board.
Order of Arrest
During the investigation stage regarding whether or not an alien will be deported, can the
President order his arrest and detention?
---No. The President cannot order his arrest. Only the court can order that.

Can the President order the arrest and deportation of Sr. Fox?
---No. The President cannot.

NOTE: Once an individual will be deported, then there must be a valid order already by
the Deportation Board that the person will be deported. The individual can of course
question it in court. If the Court agrees with the President, then the individual will be
deported.

Power (of the President) over Legislation

a) Message to Congress – during the opening of their session
b) Prepare and submit the budget
NOTE: Congress can decrease the budget because they have powers of appropriations.
However, they cannot increase the budget of the President.
c) Veto Power
d) Emergency Power
e) Fixing of Tariff Rate

NOTE: d) emergency power and e) fixing of tariff rate are, however, delegated by
Congress.

Other Powers:
f) Call Congress to a special session (Article VI)
g) Consent to the legitimate deputation of government personnel by the COMELEC
and to discipline such deputies if needed

Next Meeting: Judiciary