EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS Tanada v.

Tuvera Facts:

Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern (Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution) as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, Lorenzo M. Tanada, Abraham F. Sarmiento and Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (Mabini) seek a writ of mandamus to compel Juan C. Tuvera (in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President), Joaquin Venus (in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President), Melquiades P. de la Cruz (in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office), and Florendo S. Pablo (in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing), to publish, and or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders.

Issue: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates Held: • • NO. Generally, publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date — for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication — but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. This is correct insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Article 2 of the New Civil Code, however, does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of the such provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. Further, publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. The publication of laws has taken so vital significance when the people have bestowed upon the President a power heretofore enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pambansa — and for the diligent ones, ready access to the legislative records — no such publicity accompanies the law-making process of the President. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. The publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process.

• • •


• • • • • • • •

which have not been published. Presidential issuances of general application.• • • • It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law. which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored. he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is an operative fact. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration that an all-inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. shall have no force and effect. However. .

63915. Done in the City of Manila. 1. December 29. AQUINO. Article 2 of the Civil Code partly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette. and WHEREAS. have a wider readership. I. President of the Philippines. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. 1986) when it observed that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the Official Gazette. No. 1987 PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY WHEREAS. . otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines. Sec. nineteen hundred and eighty-seven. (G. et al." and all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazette. the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the Official Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems. unless it is otherwise provided. in the year of Our Lord. and come out regularly". this 18th day of June. 3. a point recognized by the Supreme Court in Tañada. . considering its erratic release and limited readership". Sec. in view of the foregoing premises Article 2 of the Civil Code should accordingly be amended so the laws to be effective must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country. Tuvera. vs. Article 2 of Republic Act No. CORAZON C.R. THEREFORE." WHEREAS. NOW.. it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly.EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2. 386. . unless it is otherwise provided . WHEREAS. 200 June 18. newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available. et al. do hereby order: Sec.

000. But it must be herein established that a witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee may be detained during the term of the members imposing said penalty but the detention should not be too long as to violate the witness’ right to due process of law. During the Senate investigation. Arnault. Among the witnesses called to examined by the special committee created by a Senate resolution was Jean L. a lawyer who delivered a partial of the purchase price to a representative of the vendor. . as well as answer other pertinent questions in connection therewith. . at the same time invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Arnault refused to reveal the identity of said representative.” Arnault petitioned for a writ of Habeas Corpus ISSUE: Can the senate impose penalty against those who refuse to answer its questions in a congressional hearing in aid of legislation. . The Senate adopted a resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned “until he shall have purged the contempt by revealing to the Senate .LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION Jean Arnault vs Nazareno • • • • This case arose from the legislative inquiry into the acquisition by the Philippine Government of the Buenavista and Tambobong estates sometime in 1949. HELD: • • It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose penalty in carrying out their duty to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation. the name of the person to whom he gave the P440.

SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE Facts: Senator Enrile asks the Senate to look into the matter of the alleged acquisition of the Lopa Group of the properties of Kokoy Romualdez which is a subject of sequestration by the PCGG.e. and (3) the inquiry violates their right to due process.S. it is not done in aid of legislation. AL. ET. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan is where these issues by the Senate should be discussed. The petitioners representing Ricardo Lopa who passed away prior the decision of the court issued this petition for prohibition and an issuance a temporary restraining order and/or injuctive relief enjoin the Blue Ribbon committee of compelling them to appear before them..LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION JOSE F. . Senator Enrile citing probable violations of Republic Act No. Ruling: • • • The Supreme court granted the petition. therefore is violative of the separation of powers between the Senate or Congress and that Judiciary. i. The committee investigation wanted by Senator Enrile is not in aid of a legislation. vs. Issues: Coming to the specific issues raised in this case.. Section 5. Saying further that the power of the Senate and Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation is not absolute or without limitation. petitioners contend that • • • (1) the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry has no valid legislative purpose. The pending civil case of the petitioners under Civil Case No. BENGZON JR. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. (2) the sale or disposition of hte Romualdez corporations is a "purely private transaction" which is beyond the power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to inquire into.

Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. inter alia. be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. and for Other Purposes”. Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the President as provided by E. others on the issues of massive election fraud in the Philippine elections.O.O. the necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case. Ermita FACTS: • This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E. • . in this case to Congress. and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations. which requires all the public officials. The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must. the Senate of the Philippines. valid and constitutional? RULING: • • • • No. an exemption from the obligation to disclose information. In the exercise of its legislative power. 464. by definition.O.O. The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project. the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department. and the Philippine National Police (PNP). 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers. conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for. wiretapping. • • • • ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E. Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution. the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). 464 is broad and is covered by the executive privilege. The privilege being. bureaus. as a matter of necessity. Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. Section 3 which requires all the public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. 464.LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION Senate vs. through its various Senate Committees. and the role of military in the so-called “Gloriagate Scandal”. enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.

it must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected. . 464. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions.O. allow the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated. however.• • • If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged. The infirm provisions of E.

is a proper subject for investigation” and that “the power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate”. 1 be invoked by Chairman Sabio to justify non-appearance on legislative investigations? HELD: • • • • It can be said that the Congress’ power of inquiry has gained more solid existence and expansive understanding. transactions. 2006. 455 “directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC). and to documents.” Pursuant to this. Article III. and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors. Armed with the right information. Access to official records. he invoked Section 4(b) of E.” Verily. Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment. Gordon’s Subpoenae Ad Testificandum was repeatedly ignored by Sabio hence he threatened Sabio to be cited with contempt.” Apparently. No. being a legitimate subject for legislation. legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance. No. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.[7] At the same time. the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest. the purpose is to ensure PCGG’s unhampered performance of its task. . 1 “No member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial. as well as provide the people sufficient information to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights. Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT). as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. where it categorically ruled that “the power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. No. or decisions. wrote Chairman Sabio of the PCGG inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services.LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION Camilo Sabio vs Gordon • On February 20. The Court’s high regard to such power is rendered more evident in Senate v.O. shall be afforded the citizen. Sen MD Santiago introduced Senate Res. the Court reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that “the operation of government. These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government.O. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. • • • • Issue: May Section 4 (b) of E. on May 8. Sen Gordon. Section 7 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Ermita. 2006. citizens can participate in public discussions leading to the formulation of government policies and their effective implementation. and papers pertaining to official acts.

However when he was probed further on PGMA’s and petitioner’s discussions relating to the NBN Project.Constant exposure to congressional subpoena takes its toll on the ability of the executive to function effectively.The court although a co-equal branch of government to the legislature.The Legislative inquiry must be confined to permissible areas and thus prevent “roving commissions. 3. the said presumption dictates that the same be recognized. an unconstrained congressional investigative power. .YES. 2007. invoking exec privilege. whether or not PGMA directed him to approve it. Neri. 2.In this case.If what is involved is the presumptive privilege of presidential communications when invoked by the President on a matter clearly within the domain of the Executive.The constitutional infirmity found in the blanket authorization to invoke exec privilege granted by the President to exec officials in sec 2(b) of E. whether or not PGMA followed up the NBN Project. presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. . who invoked exec privilege on a specific matter involving an exec agreement between Philippines and China. The Petitioner therein disclosed that when he was offered by Abalos a bribe of 200 million pesos to approve the project.LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION Neri vs. ISSUES: 1. it was the President herself. Did the respondent committee commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order? . . . He explained that the questions asked of him are covered by exec privilege. The questions that he refused to answer were: 1. Is there a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in our legal system? 2. appeared before the respondent committees and testified for about 11 hours on the matters concerning the National Broadband Project. must look into the internal . Ermita. . He was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his testimony. through exec sec. a project awarded to a Chinese company ZTE.O. whether or not PGMA directed him to prioritize it. which was the subject of the 3 questions asked. like an unchecked executive generates its own abuses. • • • • • • The petitioner did not appear before the respondent committees upon orders of the President invoking exec privilege. he informed PGMA of the attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe.YES. . 464 does not apply in this case. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations FACTS: • On September 26.” . petitioner refused to answer.

. HELD: RESPONENTS COMMITTEES’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 08APRIL2008 IS HEREBY DENIED.rules of congress w/ regard to ensuring compliance by congress to it. Since. The issuance of the order was w/o concurrence of the majority. the issuance of a contempt order must be done by a vote of majority of all its members.

illegal and unconstitutional following the adjournment sine die of both Houses of Congress of their regular sessions on 11 June 2004. On 16 June 1992. Pimentel. The petition corollarily prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Joint Committee to cease and desist from conducting any further proceedings pursuant to the Rules of the Joint Public Session of Congress on Canvassing. respectively. both Houses of Congress adjourned sine die on 25 May 1998.ACT AS BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Pimentel vs. on 22 June 1992. Article VII of the Constitution. Senator Aquilino Q. precedent or practice as borne out by the rules of both Houses of Congress supports Pimentel’s arguments against to the existence and proceedings of the Joint Committee of Congress after the sine die adjournment of Congress. Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada as President and Vice-President. and on even date proclaimed Fidel V. The Joint Committee completed the counting of the votes for President and Vice-President on 27 May 1998. during the 1998 Presidential elections. seeks a judgment declaring null and void the continued existence of the Joint Committee of Congress (Joint Committee) to determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass and preliminarily canvass the votes cast for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in the 10 May 2004 elections following the adjournment of Congress sine die on 11 June 2004. precedent or practice as borne out by the rules of both Houses of Congress” is directly contradicted by Section 42 of Rule XIV of the Rules adopted by the Senate. Issue [2]: • Whether the existence and proceedings of the Joint Committee of Congress are invalid. Pimentel’s claim that his arguments are buttressed by “legislative procedure. Thereafter. Thus. Jr. the Eighth Congress convened in joint public session as the National Board of Canvassers. Joint Committee of Congress to Canvass the Votes Cast for President and VicePresident in the 10 May 2004 Elections Facts: • • By a Petition for Prohibition. Held [2]: . The Tenth Congress then convened in joint public session on 29 May 1998 as the National Board of Canvassers and proclaimed Joseph Ejercito Estrada as President and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President and Vice-President. of which he is an incumbent member. Issue [1]: • Whether legislative procedure. the Joint Committee finished tallying the votes for President and Vice-President. Moreover. during the 1992 Presidential elections. both Houses of Congress adjourned sine die on 25 May 1992. vs. the precedents set by the 1992 and 1998 Presidential Elections do not support the move to stop the ongoing canvassing by the Joint Committee. Upon the other hand. Held [1]: • • • • • • • • • • NO. respectively. This section clearly provides that the Senate shall convene in joint session during any voluntary or compulsory recess to canvass the votes for President and Vice-President not later than thirty days after the day of the elections in accordance with Section 4.

adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. Article VII of the Constitution to canvass the votes for and to proclaim the newly elected President and Vice-President has not. but it retains its authority as a board until it has accomplished its purposes. and cannot.") does not pertain to the term of Congress. Article VI of the Constitution (which provides that "The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session. exclusive of Saturdays. In fact. Its membership may change. at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election." Consequently. despite the adjournment sine die of Congress. and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session. Section 15. Sundays. until June 30. and legal holidays. Since the Twelfth Congress has not yet completed its non-legislative duty to canvass the votes and proclaim the duly elected President and Vice-President. as well as that of the Joint Committee to which it referred the preliminary tasks of authenticating and canvassing the certificates of canvass. there is no legal impediment to the Joint Committee completing the tasks assigned to it and transmitting its report for the approval of the joint public session of both Houses of Congress. unless a different date is fixed by law. In sum. The term of the present Twelfth Congress did not terminate and expire upon the adjournment sine die of the regular session of both Houses on 11 June 2004. the joint public session of both Houses of Congress convened by express directive of Section 4. but to its regular annual legislative sessions and the mandatory 30-day recess before the opening of its next regular session (subject to the power of the President to call a special session at any time). The President may call a special session at any time. unless otherwise provided by law. at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. Section 4 of Article VIII also of the Constitution clearly provides that "the term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence. its existence as the National Board of Canvassers. but this does not affect its non-legislative functions. such as that of being the National Board of Canvassers. there being no law to the contrary. Section 7 of the same Article provides that "the Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin.• • • • • • • • • • • • • NO. the present Twelfth Congress to which the present legislators belong cannot be said to have "passed out of legal existence. which may reconvene without need of call by the President to a special session. has not become functus officio. unless otherwise provided by law." Similarly. For only when a board of canvassers has completed its functions is it rendered functus officio. 2004. ." The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may have come to a close upon the final adjournment of its regular sessions on 11 June 2004.

Manotoc. The funds were previously held by 5 account groups. using various foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks: (1) Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts. Jr. represented by his Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. On 18 October 1996. the Republic sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couple's salaries. Mrs. granting the Republic's request for legal assistance. The General Agreement specified in one of its premises or "whereas clauses" the fact that petitioner "obtained a judgment from the Swiss Federal Tribunal on December 21. Araneta and Ferdinand R. 14 and 14-A. Hearings were conducted by the Sandiganbayan on the motion to approve the General/Supplemental Agreements.S. 1990. was presented as witness for the purpose of establishing the partial implementation of said agreements. as ill-gotten wealth. "Republic of the Philippines vs. collate. other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. Maria Imelda M. a General Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements dated 28 December 1993 were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family. Marcos. Before the case was set for pre-trial. seeking the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million (now estimated to be more than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB. Araneta and Ferdinand." Mrs. Marcos. Subsequently. Ferdinand. Imelda R. The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements sought to identify. On 18 October 1993. 2. and (5) Maler Foundation accounts. the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic's motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the motion to approve the compromise agreement "(took) precedence over the motion for summary judgment. filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan (Civil Case 0141. filed their answer. Sandiganbayan Facts: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • On 17 December 1991. that the Three Hundred Fifty-six Million U. Marcos filed her opposition thereto which was later adopted by Mrs. through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). In addition. represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).THE PRESIDENT: PRIVILEGES AND SALARY Republic vs. . Jr. the Republic of the Philippines." The said decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Zurich District Attorney Peter Consandey. Jr. cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein. (4) Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation accounts. Marcos filed a manifestation on 26 May 1998 claiming she was not a party to the motion for approval of the Compromise Agreement and that she owned 90% of the funds with the remaining 10% belonging to the Marcos estate. In its resolution dated 20 November 1997. Mrs. dollars (US$356 million) belongs in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met x x x. Marcos. Consandey declared the various deposits in the name of the enumerated foundations to be of illegal provenance and ordered that they be frozen to await the final verdict in favor of the parties entitled to restitution. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines. Marcos") pursuant to RA 13791 in relation to Executive Orders 1. the Marcos children filed a motion dated 7 December 1995 for the approval of said agreements and for the enforcement thereof. Ferdinand E. Manotoc. by virtue of the freeze order issued by the PCGG. now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Irene M. the Republic filed a motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings. (3) Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy Foundation accounts. (2) Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-Valamo-SpinusAvertina Foundation accounts.

e. Manotoc. Araneta filed a manifestation dated 4 October 2000 adopting the motion for reconsideration of Mrs. perforce. respectively. which opposition was later adopted by her Mrs. Jr. Marcos as a public official who served without interruption as Congressman. and (2) the extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds. Marcos who once served as a member of the Interim Batasang • • • . whether it be in his name or otherwise. an additional request for the immediate transfer of the deposits to an escrow account in the PNB. upheld the ruling of the District Attorney of Zurich granting the request for the transfer of the funds. Manotoc and Ferdinand. the Marcoses admitted in their answer the contents of paragraph 5 of the petition as to the personal circumstances of Imelda R. Araneta and Ferdinand.. Senator.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Meanwhile. Switzerland. After the pre-trial and the issuance of the pre-trial order and supplemental pre-trial order dated 28 October 1999 and 21 January 2000. After several resettings. on 10 March 2000. The Republic filed the petition for certiorari. Mrs. filed their own motion for reconsideration dated 5 October 2000. Senate President and President of the Republic of the Philippines from 1 December 1965 to 25 February 1986. must also have been without basis. In a resolution dated 31 January 2002. largely. Likewise. the Sandiganbayan reversed its decision. the Republic. Marcos." The Sandiganbayan set the case for further proceedings. Mrs. thus denying the Republic's motion for summary judgment. in a decision dated 10 December 1997. the case was set for trial. Subsequently. the Marcos children moved that the funds be placed in custodia legis because the deposit in escrow in the PNB was allegedly in danger of dissipation by petitioner. Herein. in its resolution dated 8 September 1998. Mrs. of the Marcoses’ lawful income. Mrs. Paragraph 4 of the Marcoses' answer categorically admitted the allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition for forfeiture as to the personal circumstances of Ferdinand E. Jr. Issue: Whether the Swiss funds deposited in escrow at the PNB can be forfeited in favor of the Republic. On 24 March 2000. Held: • • RA 1379 raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired. Marcos filed a motion for reconsideration dated 26 September 2000. Likewise. The Sandiganbayan. on the basis. the Republic filed with the District Attorney in Zurich. In 1998. holding that "the evidence offered for summary judgment of the case did not prove that the money in the Swiss Banks belonged to the Marcos spouses because no legal proof exists in the record as to the ownership by the Marcoses of the funds in escrow from the Swiss Banks. the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. is grossly disproportionate to. In a decision dated 19 September 2000. Marcos filed her opposition to the motion for summary judgment. On appeal by the Marcoses. Jr. The basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot be deemed to have been established and our judgment thereon. granted the motion. the funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow. hence subject to forfeiture. Mrs. if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it. The request was granted. the Sandiganbayan granted the Republic's motion for summary judgment. on 10 August 1995. filed another motion for summary judgment pertaining to the forfeiture of the US$356 million. Manotoc and Ferdinand. the spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public officials during the time material to the present case was never in dispute. Mrs. a hearing on the motion for summary judgment was conducted. i. the legitimate income of the public officer. The following facts must be established in order that forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may be effected: (1) ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency.

372. their total accumulated salaries amounted to P2. The Marcos couple indubitably acquired and owned properties during their term of office. Sec.33.43 should be held as the only known lawful income of the Marcoses since they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL). It is the proof of the third element that is crucial in determining whether a prima facie presumption has been established in this case. Ferdinand E. Mrs. at P100.570.000/year.000/year.833. and (3) said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. The second element deals with the amount of money or property acquired by the public officer during his incumbency. It is undisputed that spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were former public officers. Article VII. (2) he must have acquired a considerable amount of money or property during his incumbency. Sec. the five groups of Swiss accounts were admittedly owned by them.000/year.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pambansa from 1978 to 1984 and as Metro Manila Governor. The dollar equivalent was arrived at by using the official annual rates of exchange of the Philippine peso and the US dollar from 1965 to 1985 as well as the official monthly rates of exchange in January and February 1986 issued by the Center for Statistical Information of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. concurrently Minister of Human Settlements. . P718. Marcos and Imelda R. at P110. (b) 1977-1984. respectively." In fact. 11. Marcos. from June 1976 to February 1986. 7 thereof). Marcos. dollars on the basis of the corresponding peso-dollar exchange rates prevailing during the applicable period when said salaries were received. or a total of P2. Marcos had accumulated salaries in the amount of P1. P800. (2) Imelda R. the total amount had an equivalent value of $304. money or property is manifestly out of proportion to the public officer's salary and his other lawful income.319. from which their net worth could be determined.33. The Republic did not fail to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss deposits. The elements which must concur for the prima facie presumption in Section 2 of RA 1379 to apply are: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee. Marcos as President could "not receive during his tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. at P60.750: (1) Ferdinand E. Converted to U. at P75. his management of businesses. There is proof of the existence and ownership of these assets and properties and it suffices to comply with the second element.000. was expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution (See Article VII. Marcos. Sec. under the 1935 Constitution. under the 1973 Constitution.000 and P718.372. 80 The Certification showed that.750.000/year. P660. In fact. P110. 4(2). Likewise. as President: (a) 1966-1976. Ferdinand E. The third requirement is met if it can be shown that such assets. like the administration of foundations to accumulate funds. Hence. as required by law. Marcos also admitted in paragraph 10 of her answer the allegations of paragraph 11 of the petition for forfeiture which referred to the accumulated salaries of respondents Ferdinand E.000. The combined accumulated salaries of the Marcos couple were reflected in the Certification dated 27 May 1986 issued by then Minister of Budget and Management Alberto Romulo. (c) 1985. Marcos and Imelda R. The Republic presented not only a schedule indicating the lawful income of the Marcos spouses during their incumbency but also evidence that they had huge deposits beyond such lawful income in Swiss banks under the names of five different foundations. In addition to their accumulated salaries from 1966 to 1985 are the Marcos couple's combined salaries from January to February 1986 in the amount of P30.43 can therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining the existence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss funds. Besides. Ferdinand E.000.583. the first element is clearly extant. and Article IX.288. Marcos as President could not receive "any other emolument from the Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities".372.000. The sum of $304. Hence. Their only known lawful income of $304.43. as Minister: June 1976-1985. from 1966 to 1985.S.

Considering. the presumption that said dollar deposits were unlawfully acquired was duly established. The Swiss deposits which were transferred to and are deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount of US$658. therefore. and their total government salaries. way beyond their aggregate legitimate income of only US$304. plus interest. the Republic presented enough evidence to convince the Court that the Marcoses had dollar deposits amounting to US $356 million representing the balance of the Swiss accounts of the five foundations.43 during their incumbency as government officials.175. It was sufficient for the petition for forfeiture to state the approximate amount of money and property acquired by the Marcoses. Otherwise stated. .372.373.• • • • • The Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials. an amount way.60 as of 31 January 2002. were forfeited in favor of the Republic. that the total amount of the Swiss deposits was considerably out of proportion to the known lawful income of the Marcoses.

Madison. and the allocation of governmental powers under section II of Article VII. and section 8 of Article VII. he will leave by Monday. notably section 1 of Article II. on Monday. EDSA I presented political question. b. . but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. The proposal for a snap election for president in May where he would not be a candidate is an indicium that petitioner had intended to give up the presidency even at that time. . Arroyo FACTS: • Petitioner sought to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in any criminal complaint that may be filed in his office. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review.” The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. the SC held that petitioner resigned as President.” • HELD: IN VIEW WHEREOF. praying for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office. EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the Office of the President. The Angara diary shows that the President wanted only five-day period promised by Reyes. as well as to open the second envelop to clear his name. . As early as the 1803 case of Marbury v. he says. • The principal issues for resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution. Erap also filed a Quo Warranto case. FIRST: The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions.THE PRESIDENT: SUCCESSION IN CASE OF TEMPORARY DISABILITY Estrada V. a. • “If the envelope is opened. EDSA II involves legal questions. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. until after the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted. the doctrine has been laid down that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is . the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity. only in an acting capacity pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. • • • • • • SECOND: Using the totality test.

“Pagod na pagod na ako. TEOFISTO T. (I am very tired. The intent to resign is clear when he said “x x x Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. In the press release containing his final statement. 82 which states: “RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO’S NOMINATION OF SEN. he cannot successfully claim that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to govern temporarily. the national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency. THIRD: The petitioner is permanently unable to act as President. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of inability. Certainly. His presidency is now in the past tense. (1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation about its legality. Ayoko na masyado nang masakit. and (5) he called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. the seat of the presidency. EXTENDING ITS CONGRATULATIONS AND EXPRESSING ITS SUPPORT FOR HER ADMINISTRATION AS A PARTNER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE NATION’S GOALS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. (3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after occupying the office of’ the president which he has given up. I’m tired of the red tape. (4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of our country. he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as President. The House of Representative passed on January 24.• “The President says. His resignation was also confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. Even if petitioner can prove that he did not resign. He did not say he was leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and he was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the disability disappears. • • c.” The SC held that this is high grade evidence that the petitioner has resigned. The only unsettled points at that time were the measures to be undertaken by the parties during and after transition period. the intrigue.) “I just want to clear my name. l75 which states: “RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ASSUMPTION INTO OFFICE BY VICE PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AS PRESIDENT OFTHE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. During the negotiations. AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES” Implicitly clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of petitioner Estrada is no longer temporary. • • • • • . then I will go. intriga.” The Senate also passed Senate Resolution No. (2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace. GUINGONA. Without doubt. his final act of farewell. the resignation of the petitioner was treated as a given fact. the bureaucracy. The press release was petitioner’s valedictory. JR. bureaucracy. for the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation.” “ Ayoko na” are words of resignation. still.” Both houses of Congress have recognized respondent Arroyo as the President. I don’t want any more of this – it’s too painful. Pagod na ako sa red tape. 2001 House Resolution No. d. • Section 11 of Article VII provides that “Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the President is incapable of performing his functions.

• • • • • • The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. In the case at bar. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency. the Senate passed Senate Resolution No. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable if change even by evidence presented during the trial. . • • • • • Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. Considering the peculiar circumstance that the impeachment process against the petitioner has been aborted and thereafter he lost the presidency. petitioner cannot demand as a condition sine qua non to his criminal prosecution before the Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. if granted. • • • • FIFTH: Petitioner was not denied the right to impartial trial. The plea. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden. The SC also ruled in In re: Saturnino Bermudez that “incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure” but not beyond. the proper criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him. 83 “Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio. FOURTH: The petitioner does not enjoy immunity from suit. 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 other trespasser.” Since the Impeachment Court is now functus officio. On February 7. would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. petitioner cannot cite any decision of the SC licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted. 2001. Also. The debates in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President. gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality.• That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de jure President made by a co-equal branch of government cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful