CMU

Enrichment Learning Activity

OoJust
Name: MASALLO, ALMIRA Date: May 8, 2023
MATIBAG, CHRISTINE MAE C.
MEJIA, RONALD
MENDOZA, ALBHENSY
Year and Section: BSE-MATH 2A Instructor: ATTY. MANUEL SANTOS
Subject: POLITICS, GOVERNANCE WITH Topic: Article VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Case No.1

G.R. No. 146738 JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

Issue:

On the line in the cases at bar is the office of the President. Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada alleges that
he is the President on leave while respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the President. The
warring personalities are important enough but more transcendental are the constitutional issues
embedded on the parties’ dispute. While the significant issues are many, the jugular issue involves the
relationship between the ruler and the ruled in a democracy, Philippine style.

Facts of the case:

In the May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected President while respondent
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected Vice-President. Some ten (10) million Filipinos voted for the
petitioner believing he would rescue them from life’s adversity. Both petitioner and the respondent were
to serve a six-year term commencing on June 30, 1998.

Estrada has political troubles started shortly two years later, when then Ilocos Sur governor Chavit
Singson, his longtime friend, went public with accusations that Estrada and his cronies received millions of
pesos from illegal operations of jueteng. When he was president, Estrada allegedly received P10 million
monthly from November 1998 to August 2000 from jueteng lords as protection money. He was also
accused of bagging a P130-million kickback from the P200 million released by then budget secretary
Benjamin Diokno for tobacco farmers. He also allegedly received P100 million as “donation” from
government funds allegedly given by a private organization run by Estrada’s wife.

Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin
issued a pastoral statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking
petitioner to step down from the presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern.3 Two days later
or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines joined the cry for the resignation of
the petitioner.4 Four days later, or on October 17, former President Corazon C. Aquino also demanded

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

that the petitioner take the “supreme self-sacrifice” of resignation.5 Former President Fidel Ramos also
joined the chorus. Early on, or on October 12, respondent Arroyo resigned as Secretary of the
Department of Social Welfare and Services6 and later asked for petitioner’s resignation.7 However,
petitioner strenuously held on to his office and refused to resign.

After the testimony of Ocampo, the impeachment trial was adjourned in the spirit of Christmas. When it
resumed on January 2, 2001, more bombshells were exploded by the prosecution. On January 11, Atty.
Edgardo Espiritu who served as petitioner’s Secretary of Finance took the witness stand. He alleged that
the petitioner jointly owned BW Resources Corporation with Mr. Dante Tan who was facing charges of
insider trading.16 Then came the fateful day of January 16, when by a vote of 11-1017 the senator-judges
ruled against the opening of the second envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing that
petitioner held P3.3 billion in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde.” The public and
private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling. In disgust, Senator Pimentel resigned as Senate
President.18 The ruling made at 10:00 p.m. was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger that hit the
streets of the metropolis. By midnight, thousands had assembled at the EDSA Shrine and speeches full of
sulphur were delivered against the petitioner and the eleven (11) senators

On January 17, the public prosecutors submitted a letter to Speaker Fuentebella tendering their collective
resignation. They also filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance with the impeachment
tribunal.19 Senator Raul Roco quickly moved for the indefinite postponement of the impeachment
proceedings until the House of Representatives shall have resolved the issue of resignation of the public
prosecutors. Chief Justice Davide granted the motion.20

January 18 saw the high velocity intensification of the call for petitioner’s resignation. A 10-kilometer line
of people holding lighted candles formed a human chain from the Ninoy Aquino Monument on Ayala
Avenue in Makati City to the EDSA Shrine to symbolize the people’s solidarity in demanding petitioner’s
resignation.

January 20 turned to be the day of surrender. At 12:20 a.m., the first round of negotiations for the
peaceful and orderly transfer of power started at Malacaang’’ Mabini Hall, Office of the Executive
Secretary. Secretary Edgardo Angara, Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Ramon Bagatsing, Political
Adviser Angelito Banayo, Asst. Secretary Boying Remulla, and Atty. Macel Fernandez, head of the
Presidential Management Staff, negotiated for the petitioner. Respondent Arroyo was represented by
now Executive Secretary Renato de Villa, now Secretary of Finance Alberto Romulo and now Secretary of
Justice Hernando Perez.

At about 12:00 noon, Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as President of the
Philippines.28 At 2:30 p.m., petitioner and his family hurriedly left Malacaang Palace.

January 20, 2001, he signed the following letter:31

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

“Sir:

By virtue of the provisions of Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution, I am hereby transmitting this
declaration that I am unable to exercise the powers and duties of my office. By operation of law and the
Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the Acting President.

(Sgd.) JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA”

A copy of the letter was sent to former Speaker Fuentebella at 8:30 a.m. on January 20.23 Another copy
was transmitted to Senate President Pimentel on the same day although it was received only at 9:00
p.m.33

On January 22, the Monday after taking her oath, respondent Arroyo immediately discharged the powers
the duties of the Presidency. On the same day, this Court issued the following Resolution in
Administrative Matter No. 01-1-05-SC

Decision of the court:

Request of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to Take her Oath of Office as President of the Republic
of the Philippines before the Chief Justice – Acting on the urgent request of Vice President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President of the Republic of the Philippines, addressed to the Chief
Justice and confirmed by a letter to the Court, dated January 20, 2001, which request was treated as an
administrative matter, the court Resolve unanimously to confirm the authority given by the twelve (12)
members of the Court then present to the Chief Justice on January 20, 2001 to administer the oath of
office of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Philippines, at noon of January 20,
2001.

On January 24, Representative Feliciano Belmonte was elected new Speaker of the House of
Representatives.37 The House then passed Resolution No. 175 “expressing the full support of the House
of Representatives to the administration of Her Excellency, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the
Philippines.”38 It also approved Resolution No. 176 “expressing the support of the House of
Representatives to the assumption into office by Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of
the Republic of the Philippines, extending its congratulations and expressing its support for her
administration as a partner in the attainment of the nation’s goals under the Constitution.

Reference:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_146738_2001.html

Case No.2:

G.R. No. 252118 DATE: 8 May 2020, General Considerations;

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Presidency Petitioner: Dino S. De Leon

Respondent: Rodrigo Roa Duterte Ponente

Issue:

WON petitioner is entitled to grant of Urgent Petition for Mandamus (No)

Facts of the case:

• Petitioner alleged that the President has been absent from several arrangements due to health reasons
and also had prolonged absences from public view. He averred that the president looked incoherent
during the COVID-19 live press conferences on March 12, 2020.

• Petitioner filed a Freedom of Information Request under E.O. No. 2 (2016) with the OP. Seeking to be
clarified on the status of the president’s health, petitioner specifically asked for copies of the president’s
latest medical examination results.

• In response to his request, the Malacanang Records Office (MRO) sent to him an electronic mail dated
March 13, 2020 stating that it is unable to provide the information requested. MRO explained that the
records requested are neither on file not in its possession and that it shall accommodate petitioner’s
request as soon as the requested information becomes available for release.

• Petitioner allegedly failed to get a response from the MRO despite follow-ups

• Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus seeking to compel respondents to (1) disclose all medical
and psychological/psychiatric examination results, health bulletins, and other healthy records of the
president ever since he assumed presidency and (2) compel the president to undergo additional
confirmatory medical and psychological examinations which shall be publicly disclosed in order to ensure
the accuracy of the health records to be released.

• Petitioner anchors his alleged right to be informed in the basis of Sec. 12, Art. VII and Sec. 7 Art. III in
relation to Sec. 28 Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. Sec. 12 Art. VII SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of
the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The Members of the Cabinet in
charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. Sec. 7 Art. III SECTION 7. The
right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.

• Petitioner argued that illnesses acknowledged by the president (Buerger’s Disease, Barret’s esophagus,
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, and Myasthenia Gravis together with migraine and spinal issues) are

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

serious illnesses within the ambit of Sec. 12 Art. VII of the Constitution. He also considers the
psychological report (“anti-social and narcissistic personality disorder”) submitted in the course of the
trial court proceedings for the declaration of nullity of his marriage.

Decision of the court:

Based on the allegations itself petitioner failed to establish the existence of a clear legal right that was
violated, or that he is entitled to the writ of mandamus prayed for. WHEREFORE, the Extremely Urgent
Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

Reference:

https://pdfcoffee.com/de-leon-v-duterte-digest-pdf-free.html

https://lawphil.net/sc_res/reso2020/myo2020/myo2020.html

Case No.3:

Executive Department – Military Powers TITLE: David v. Macapagal-Arroyo

CITATION: G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006
SUBJECT: Constitutional Law 1

Issue:

Whether or not PP1017 and GO No. 5 are constitutional.

Facts of the case:

These seven (7) consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition allege that in issuing Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 (PP 1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo committed grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners contend that respondent officials of the
Government, in their professed efforts to defend and preserve democratic institutions, are actually
trampling upon the very freedom guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Hence, such issuances
are void for being unconstitutional.

On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20 th Anniversary of the Edsa People Power 1,
President Arroyo issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency and call upon the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), to prevent and suppress acts of
terrorism and lawless violence in the country. The Office of the President announced the cancellation of
all programs and activities related to the 20 th anniversary celebration of Edsa People Power I; and revoked
the permits to hold rallies issued earlier by the local governments and dispersal of the rallyists along
EDSA. The police arrested (without warrant) petitioner Randolf S. David, a professor at the University of

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

the Philippines and newspaper columnist. Also arrested was his companion, Ronald Llamas, president of
party-list Akbayan.

In the early morning of February 25, 2006, operatives of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG) of the PNP, on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided the Daily Tribune offices in Manila and
attempt to arrest was made against representatives of ANAKPAWIS, GABRIELA and BAYAN MUNA whom
suspected of inciting to sedition and rebellion. On March 3, 2006, President Arroyo issued PP 1021
declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist. Petitioners filed seven (7) certiorari
with the Supreme Court and three (3) of those petitions impleaded President Arroyo as respondent
questioning the legality of the proclamation, alleging that it encroaches the emergency powers of
Congress and it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of Speech and assembly.

Decision of the court:

The Court rules that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the provisions of PP
1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence, as well as decrees
promulgated by the President, are declared unconstitutional. In addition, the provision in PP 1017
declaring national emergency under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution is constitutional, but such
declaration does not authorize the President to take over privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without prior legislation.

G.O. No. 5 is constitutional since it provides a standard by which the AFP and the PNP should implement
PP 1017, i.e. whatever is “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts
of lawless violence.” Considering that “acts of terrorism” have not yet been defined and made punishable
by the Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared uncunconstitutional.

Case No.4:

G.R. No. 152154. July 15, 2003 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS
(REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA
[IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE
MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, RESPONDENTS.
Issue:

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Case No. 0141 entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, represented by his
Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. Marcos, pursuant to RA 1379[1] in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1,[2] 2,[3]
14[4] and 14-A.[5]

Facts of the case:

On December 17, 1991, petitioner Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the
Sandiganbayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 0141 entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E.
Marcos, represented by his Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. Marcos, pursuant to RA 1379[1] in relation to
Executive Order Nos. 1,[2] 2,[3] 14[4] and 14-A.[5]

In said case, petitioner sought 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, as ill-gotten wealth.
The funds were previously held by the following five account groups, using various foreign foundations in
certain Swiss banks:

(1) Azio-Verso-Vibur Foundation accounts;

(2) Xandy-Wintrop: Charis-Scolari-Valamo-Spinus- Avertina Foundation accounts;
(3) Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy Foundation accounts;
(4) Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation accounts and
(5) Maler Foundation accounts.

In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which
exceeded the Marcos couple’s salaries, other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired
property. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines, now Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, by virtue of the freeze order issued by the PCGG.

On October 18, 1993, respondents Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda M. Manotoc, Irene M. Araneta and
Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. filed their answer.

Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement and the Supplemental Agreements[6] dated
December 28, 1993 were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol
Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family. Subsequently, respondent Marcos
children filed a motion dated December 7, 1995 for the approval of said agreements and for the
enforcement thereof.

The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements sought to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and
distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein.
The aforementioned 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, 1990, that the

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Three Hundred Fifty-six Million U.S. dollars (US$356 million) belongs in principle to the Republic of the
Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met x x x.” The said decision of the Swiss Federal
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Zurich District Attorney Peter Consandey, granting petitioner’s
request for legal assistance.[7] 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.

Hearings were conducted by the Sandiganbayan on the motion to approve the General/Supplemental
Agreements. Respondent Ferdinand, Jr. was presented as witness for the purpose of establishing the
partial implementation of said agreements.

On October 18, 1996, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings.
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed her opposition thereto which was later adopted by respondents Mrs.
Manotoc, Mrs. Araneta and Ferdinand, Jr.

In its resolution dated November 20, 1997, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’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.”

Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a manifestation on May 26, 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.

Meanwhile, on August 10, 1995, petitioner filed with the District Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland, an
additional request for the immediate transfer of the deposits to an escrow account in the PNB. The
request was granted. On appeal by the Marcoses, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in a decision dated
December 10, 1997, upheld the ruling of the District Attorney of Zurich granting the request for the
transfer of the funds. In 1998, the funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow. Subsequently,
respondent 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. The Sandiganbayan, in its
resolution dated September 8, 1998, granted the motion.

Decision of the court:

CORONA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to (1) set aside the Resolution
dated January 31, 2002 issued by the Special First Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141
entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et. Al., and (2) reinstate its earlier decision
dated September 19, 2000 which forfeited in favor of petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) the

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

amount held in escrow in the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the aggregate amount of
US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002.

Reference:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48708

Case No.5:

G.R. No. 231774

NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, SITTIE NUR DYHANNA S. MOHAMAD, NORAISAH S. SANI, ZAHRIA P. MUTI-
MAPANDI, Petitioners,

Vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND)

SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG)
SECRETARY (OFFICER-INCHARGE) CATALINO S. CUY, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHEF OF
STAFF GEN. EDUARDO M. AÑO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) CHIEF DIRECTOR GENERAL RONALD
M. DELA ROSA, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., Respondents.

Issue:

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

Facts of the case:

The full text of Proclamation No. 216 reads as follows:

WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 55, series of 2016, was issued on 04 September 2016 declaring a state of
national emergency on account of lawless violence in Mindanao;

WHEREAS, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution provides that ‘x x x In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he (the President) 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 x x
x’;

In particular, the President chronicled in his Report the events which took place on May 23, 2017 in
Marawi City which impelled him to declare a state of martial law and suspend the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus, to wit:

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

• At 1400H members of the Maute Group and ASG, along with their sympathizers, commenced their
attack on various facilities – government and privately owned – in the City of Marawi.

• At 1600H around fifty (50) armed criminals assaulted Marawi City Jail being manage by the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP).

• The Maute Group forcibly entered the jail facilities, destroyed its main gate, and assaulted on-duty
personnel. BJMP personnel were disarmed, tied, and/or locked inside the cells.

• The group took cellphones, personnel-issued firearms, and vehicles (i.e., two [2] prisoner vans and
private vehicles).

• By 1630H, the supply of power into Marawi City had been interrupted, and sporadic gunfights were
heard and felt everywhere. By evening, the power outage had spread citywide. (As of 24 May 2017,
Marawi City’s electric supply was still cut off, plunging the city into total black-out.)

• From 1800H to 1900H, the same members of the Maute Group ambushed and burned the Marawi
Police Station. A patrol car of the Police Station was also taken.

• A member of the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit was killed during the takeover of the Marawi City
Jail. The Maute Group facilitated the escape of at least sixty-eight (68) inmates of the City Jail.

• The BJMP directed its personnel at the Marawi City Jail and other affected areas to evacuate.

The unfolding of these events, as well as the classified reports he received, led the President to conclude
that –

These activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a clear attempt to establish the groups’ seat
of power in Marawi City for their planned establishment of a DAESH wilayat or province covering the
entire Mindanao.

The cutting of vital lines for transportation and power; the recruitment of young Muslims to further
expand their ranks and strengthen their force; the armed consolidation of their members throughout
Marawi City; the decimation of a segment of the city population who resist; and the brazen display of
DAESH flags constitute a clear, pronounced, and unmistakable intent to remove Marawi City, and
eventually the rest of Mindanao, from its allegiance to the Government.

There exists no doubt that lawless armed groups are attempting to deprive the President of his power,
authority, and prerogatives within Marawi City as a precedent to spreading their control over the entire
Mindanao, in an attempt to undermine his control over executive departments, bureaus, and offices in
said area; defeat his mandate to ensure that all laws are faithfully executed; and remove his supervisory
powers over local govemments.

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Decision of the court:

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued
Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

Reference:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_231658_2017.html

Case No.6:

G.R. No. 226679

SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, Petitioner, Vs. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Issue:

Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the accused in Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs). The Information alleged:

Facts of the case:

The Information alleged:

That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise
use any regulated drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his possession and under his control and custody, one (1)
piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16- l G containing 0.084 [gram] of
white crystalline substance, which when examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining
Agreement,5 praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that Section
23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the
rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and
(3) the principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the government.

Decision of the court:

PERALTA, J.:

Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition1 is the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, “2 which provides:

SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.3

Reference:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_226679_2017.html

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Case No. 7

[ G.R. No. 191644. February 19, 2013 ]

DENNIS A.B. FUNA, PETITIONER, VS. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO

C. AGRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CONCURRENT CAPACITIES AS ACTING SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AS ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
RESPONDENTS.
Issue:

Did the designation of Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice, concurrently with his position of Acting
Solicitor General, violate the constitutional prohibition against dual or multiple offices for the Members of
the Cabinet and their deputies and assistant.

Facts of the case:

In Funa v. Ermita,[5] the Court resolved a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus brought by
herein petitioner assailing the constitutionality of the designation of then Undersecretary of the
Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Maria Elena H. Bautista as concurrently the
Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority. The petitioner has adopted here the arguments he
advanced in Funa v. Ermita, and he has rested his grounds of challenge mainly on the pronouncements in
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary[6] and Public Interest Center, Inc. v. Elma.[7]

What may differentiate this challenge from those in the others is that the appointments being hereby
challenged were in acting or temporary capacities. Still, the petitioner submits that the prohibition under
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not distinguish between an appointment or
designation of a Member of the Cabinet in an acting or temporary capacity, on the one hand, and one in a
permanent capacity, on the other hand; and that Acting Secretaries, being nonetheless Members of the
Cabinet, are not exempt from the constitutional ban. He emphasizes that the position of the Solicitor

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

General is not an ex officio position in relation to the position of the Secretary of Justice, considering that
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is an independent and autonomous office attached to the
Department of Justice (DOJ).[8] He insists that the fact that Agra was extended an appointment as the
Acting Solicitor General shows that he did not occupy that office in an ex officio capacity because an ex
officio position does not require any further warrant or appointment.

Respondents contend, in contrast, that Agra’s concurrent designations as the Acting Secretary of Justice
and Acting Solicitor General were only in a temporary capacity, the only effect of which was to confer
additional duties to him. Thus, as the Acting Solicitor General and Acting Secretary of Justice, Agra was
not “holding” both offices in the strict constitutional sense.[9] They argue that an appointment, to be
covered by the constitutional prohibition, must be regular and permanent, instead of a mere designation.

Respondents further contend that, even on the assumption that Agra’s concurrent designation
constituted “holding of multiple offices,” his continued service as the Acting Solicitor General was akin to
a hold-over; that upon Agra’s designation as the Acting Secretary of Justice, his term as the Acting
Solicitor General expired in view of the constitutional prohibition against holding of multiple offices by the
Members of the Cabinet; that under the principle of hold-over, Agra continued his service as the Acting
Solicitor General “until his successor is elected and qualified”[10] to “prevent a hiatus in the government
pending the time when a successor may be chosen and inducted into office;”[11] and that during his
continued service as the Acting Solicitor General, he did not receive any salaries and emoluments from
the OSG after becoming the Acting Secretary of Justice on March 5, 2010.[12]

Respondents point out that the OSG’s independence and autonomy are defined by the powers and
functions conferred to that office by law, not by the person appointed to head such office;[13] and that
although the OSG is attached to the DOJ, the DOJ’s authority, control and supervision over the OSG are
limited only to budgetary purposes.[14]

In his reply, petitioner counters that there was no “prevailing special circumstance” that justified the non-
application to Agra of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution;[15] that the temporariness of the
appointment or designation is not an excuse to disregard the constitutional ban against holding of
multiple offices by the Members of the Cabinet;[16] that Agra’s invocation of the principle of hold-over is
misplaced for being predicated upon an erroneous presentation of a material fact as to the time of his
designation as the Acting Solicitor General and Acting Secretary of Justice; that Agra’s concurrent
designations further violated the Administrative Code of 1987 which mandates that the OSG shall be
autonomous and independent.[17]

Decision of the court:

BERSAMIN, J.:

Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution expressly prohibits the President, Vice-President, the

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment
during their tenure unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. Complementing the prohibition is
Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which bans any appointive official from
holding any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, unless otherwise
allowed by law or the primary functions of his position.

These prohibitions under the Constitution are at the core of this special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition commenced on April 7, 2010 to assail the designation of respondent Hon. Alberto C. Agra,
then the Acting Secretary of Justice, as concurrently the Acting Solicitor General.

The petition is meritorious.

Reference:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/55614

Case No.8:

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 221697. March 08, 2016 ]

MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, PETITIONER, VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. Nos. 221698-700]

Issue:

Natural Citizenship of Mary Grace Natividad.

Facts of the case:

Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares (petitioner) was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the
Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo) on 3 September 1968. Parental care
and custody over petitioner was passed on by Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano Militar (Emiliano) and his
wife. Three days after, 6 September 1968, Emiliano reported and registered petitioner as a foundling with
the Office of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City (OCR-Iloilo). In her Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live
Birth, the petitioner was given the name “Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar.”[1]

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

When petitioner was five (5) years old, celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fenando Poe, Jr.)
and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces) filed a petition for her adoption with the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of San Juan City. On 13 May 1974, the trial court granted their petition and ordered that
petitioner’s name be changed from “Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar” to “Mary Grace Natividad
Sonora Poe.” Although necessary notations were made by OCR-Iloilo on petitioner’s foundling certificate
reflecting the court decreed adoption,[2] the petitioner’s adoptive mother discovered only sometime in
the second half of 2005 that the lawyer who handled petitioner’s adoption failed to secure from the OCR-

Iloilo a new Certificate of Live Birth indicating petitioner’s new name and the name of her adoptive
parents.[3] Without delay, petitioner’s mother executed an affidavit attesting to the lawyer’s omission
which she submitted to the OCR-Iloilo. On 4 May 2006, OCR-Iloilo issued a new Certificate of Live Birth in
the name of Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.[4]

Having reached the age of eighteen (18) years in 1986, petitioner registered as a voter with the local
COMELEC Office in San Juan City. On 13 December 1986, she received her COMELEC Voter’s Identification
Card for Precinct No. 196 in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila.[5]

On 4 April 1988, petitioner applied for and was issued Philippine Passport No. F927287[6] by the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Subsequently, on 5 April 1993 and 19 May 1998, she renewed her
Philippine passport and respectively secured Philippine Passport Nos. L881511 and DD156616.[7]

Initially, the petitioner enrolled and pursued a degree in Development Studies at the University of the
Philippines[8] but she opted to continue her studies abroad and left for the United States of America
(U.S.) in 1988. Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston College in Chestnuts Hill, Massachusetts where
she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies.[9]

On 27 July 1991, petitioner married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares (Llamanzares), a citizen of both
the Philippines and the U.S., at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan City.[10] Desirous of being with
her husband who was then based in the U.S., the couple flew back to the U.S. two days after the wedding
ceremony or on 29 July 1991.[11]

While in the U.S., the petitioner gave birth to her eldest child Brian Daniel (Brian) on 16 April 1992.[12]
Her two daughters Hanna MacKenzie (Hanna) and Jesusa Anika (Anika) were both born in the Philippines
on 10 July 1998 and 5 June 2004, respectively.[13]

On 18 October 2001, petitioner became a naturalized American citizen.[14] She obtained U.S. Passport
No. 017037793 on 19 December 2001.[15]

On 8 April 2004, the petitioner came back to the Philippines together with Hanna to support her father’s
candidacy for President in the May 2004 elections. It was during this time that she gave birth to her
youngest daughter Anika. She returned to the U.S. with her two daughters on 8 July 2004.[16]

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

After a few months, specifically on 13 December 2004, petitioner rushed back to the Philippines upon
learning of her father’s deteriorating medical condition.[17] Her father slipped into a coma and eventually
expired. The petitioner stayed in the country until 3 February 2005 to take care of her father’s funeral
arrangements as well as to assist in the settlement of his estate.[18

According to the petitioner, the untimely demise of her father was a severe blow to her entire family. In
her earnest desire to be with her grieving mother, the petitioner and her husband decided to move and
reside permanently in the Philippines sometime in the first quarter of 2005.[19] The couple began
preparing for their resettlement including notification of their children’s schools that they will be
transferring to Philippine schools for the next semester;[20] coordination with property movers for the
relocation of their household goods, furniture and cars from the U.S. to the Philippines;[21] and inquiry
with Philippine authorities as to the proper procedure to be followed in bringing their pet dog into the
country.[22] As early as 2004, the petitioner already quit her job in the U.S.[23]

Finally, petitioner came home to the Philippines on 24 May 2005[24] and without delay, secured a Tax
Identification Number from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Her three (3) children immediately
followed[25] while her husband was forced to stay in the U.S. to complete pending projects as well as to
arrange the sale of their family home there.[26]

The petitioner and her children briefly stayed at her mother’s place until she and her husband purchased
a condominium unit with a parking slot at One Wilson Place Condominium in San Juan City in the second
half of 2005.[27] The corresponding Condominium Certificates of Title covering the unit and parking slot
were issued by the Register of Deeds of San Juan City to petitioner and her husband on 20 February 2006.
[28] Meanwhile, her children of school age began attending Philippine private schools.

On 14 February 2006, the petitioner made a quick trip to the U.S. to supervise the disposal of some of the
family’s remaining household belongings.[29] She travelled back to the Philippines on 11 March 2006.[30]

In late March 2006, petitioner’s husband officially informed the U.S. Postal Service of the family’s change
and abandonment of their address in the U.S.[31] The family home was eventually sold on 27 April 2006.
[32]

Petitioner’s husband resigned from his job in the U.S. in April 2006, arrived in the country on 4 May 2006
and started working for a major Philippine company in July 2006.[33]

In early 2006, petitioner and her husband acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills, Quezon City
where they built their family home[34] and to this day, is where the couple and their children have been
residing.[35] A Transfer Certificate of Title covering said property was issued in the couple’s name by the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City on 1 June 2006.

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

On 7 July 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.[36] Under the
same Act, she filed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship
together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three minor children on 10 July 2006.
[37] As can be gathered from its 18 July 2006 Order, the BI acted favorably on petitioner’s petitions and
declared that she is deemed to have reacquired her Philippine citizenship while her children are
considered as citizens of the Philippines.[38]

Consequently, the BI issued Identification Certificates (ICs) in petitioner’s name and in the names of her
three (3) children.[39]

Again, petitioner registered as a voter of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City on 31 August 2006.[40] She
also secured from the DFA a new Philippine Passport bearing the No. XX4731999.[41] This passport was
renewed on 18 March 2014 and she was issued Philippine Passport No. EC0588861 by the DFA.[42]

On 6 October 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III appointed petitioner as Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).[43] Before assuming her post, petitioner executed an
“Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of American
Citizenship” before a notary public in Pasig City on 20 October 2010,[44] in satisfaction of the legal
requisites stated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 9225.[45] The following day, 21 October 2010 petitioner
submitted the said affidavit to the BI[46] and took her oath of office as Chairperson of the MTRCB.[47]
From then on, petitioner stopped using her American passport.[48]

On 12 July 2011, the petitioner executed before the Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an
“Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the United States.”[49] On that day, she
accomplished a sworn questionnaire before the U.S. Vice Consul wherein she stated that she had taken
her oath as MTRCB Chairperson on 21 October 2010 with the intent, among others, of relinquishing her
American citizenship.[50] In the same questionnaire, the petitioner stated that she had resided outside of
the U.S., specifically in the Philippines, from 3 September 1968 to 29 July 1991 and from May 2005 to
present.[51]

On 9 December 2011, the U.S. Vice Consul issued to petitioner a “Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the
United States” effective 21 October 2010.[52]

On 2 October 2012, the petitioner filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator
for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered “6 years and 6 months” to the question “Period of residence
in the Philippines before May 13, 2013.”[53] Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes and was
proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.[54]

On 19 December 2013, petitioner obtained Philippine Diplomatic Passport No. DE0004530.[55]

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output

 CMU
Enrichment Learning Activity

On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.[56] In her
COC, the petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up
to the day before 9 May 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May
2005.[57] The petitioner attached to her COC an “Affidavit Affirming Renunciation of U.S.A. Citizenship”
subscribed and sworn to before a notary public in Quezon City on 14 October 2015.[58]

Petitioner’s filing of her COC for President in the upcoming elections triggered the filing of several
COMELEC cases against her which were the subject of these consolidated cases.

Decision of the court:

PEREZ, J.:

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
with extremely urgent application for an ex parte issuance of temporary restraining order/status quo ante
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction assailing the following: (1) 1 December 2015 Resolution of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division; (2) 23 December 2015 Resolution of the COMELEC
En Banc, in SPA No. 15-001 (DC); (3) 11 December 2015 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division; and (4)
23 December 2015 Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc, in SPA No. 15-002 (DC), SPA No. 15-007 (DC) and
SPA No. 15-139 (DC) for having been issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Reference:

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/61848

SY2022-2023 2ND TERM Written Output