Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department)
2019 LECTURE IN
POLITICAL LAW
Executive Department
By: Atty. Enrique V. dela Cruz, Jr.
EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT
INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE
Unless otherwise allowed by law or
the primary functions of his position,
no appointive official shall hold any
other office or employment in the
Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries. [Section 13, Article VII and
Section 7, paragraph (2), Article IX-B of the
1987 Constitution]
10
11
Midnight appointment
• Section 15, Article VII:
• "Two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a President or
Acting President shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.“
12
13
14
PROBLEM:
Prior to the conduct of the May 2010 elections, then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Macapagal-
Arroyo) issued more than 800 appointments to various
positions in several government offices during the ban on
appointments (midnight appointments).
On 30 June 2010, President Benigno S. Aquino III
(President Aquino) took his oath of office as President of
the Republic of the Philippines.
On 30 July 2010, President Aquino issued EO 2 recalling,
withdrawing, and revoking appointments issued by
President MacapagalArroyo which violated the
constitutional ban on midnight appointments.
Is EO 2 correct? Should the appointments made by GMA
be revoked?
15
ANSWER: YES.
All of the 800 appointments of GMA were midnight
appointments and are void for violation of Section 15, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution. EO 2 is constitutional.
The President exercises only one kind of appointing
power. There is no need to differentiate the exercise of the
President’s appointing power outside, just before, or during
the appointment ban.
The Constitution allows the President to exercise the power
of appointment during the period not covered by the
appointment ban, and disallows (subject to an exception) the
President from exercising the power of appointment during
the period covered by the appointment ban.
So even if the appointment was accepted after the ban, it
is still void. [Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President,
(G.R. No. 203372,16 June 2015)]
16
17
QUESTION:
The President abolished the Office of the
Presidential Spokesman in Malacañang
Palace and a long-standing Bureau under
the Department of Interior and Local
Governments.
The employees of both offices assailed the
action of the President for being an
encroachment of legislative powers and
thereby void.
Was the contention of the employees
correct? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
18
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of the employees is not correct. As held in Buklod
nq Kawaninq EIIB v. Zamora. 360 SCRA 718 [2001], Section 31,
Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987 has delegated to the
President continuing authority to reorganize the administrative
structure of the Office of the President to achieve simplicity,
economy and efficiency.
Since this includes the power to abolish offices, the President can
abolish the Office of the Presidential Spokesman, provided it is done
in good faith.
The President can also abolish the Bureau in the Department of
Interior and Local Governments, provided it is done in good faith
because the President has been granted continuing authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the National Government
to effect economy and promote efficiency, and the powers include
the abolition of government offices. (Presidential Decree No. 1416,
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1772; Larin v. The
Executive Secretary. 280 SCRA 713 [I997]).
19
20
21
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
POWERS
22
23
24
25
27
Note: Martial law shall not be more than 60 days following which it
shall be lifted unless extended by Congress. Further, the
President, personally or in writing, has the duty to report to
Congress within 48 hours.
28
29
30
Note:
The power of Congress is to revoke — not to confirm
or ratify, much less to approve, — the President's
action declaring martial law or suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is a veto
power, just as the power of the judiciary to review
the President's action is a veto power on the
Executive's action.
It is clear, therefore, that the President's power to
declare martial law or suspend the writ is
independent, separate, and distinct from any
constitutionally mandated act to be performed by
either the Legislature or the Judiciary.
31
32
Thus, when Section 17 states that “the State may, during the emergency
and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business
affected with public interest but refers to Congress, not the President.
33
34
36
PARDONING
POWER
37
38
39
• QUESTION:
• Ruben Tiu was sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua
following his conviction for drug trafficking.
• The Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) recommended the
grant of executive clemency to Tiu, among many others.
• Then President GMA granted him "conditional pardon without
parole conditions," but it turned out, that his Certificate of
Conditional Pardon was not signed by PGMA.
• Meantime Congress enacted RA 10592, which substantially
increased the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) of
qualified inmates – Ruben Tiu.
• The Director of Prisons granted to Tiu a “colonist status”,
which under the BuCor Rules will automatically modify his
sentence to 30 years.
• The BPP then applied the provisions of RA 10592 and
commuted the sentence of Tiu for his GCTA.
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
• QUESTION:
• Risos-Vidal filed a petition seeking to disqualify President
Estrada from running for and holding any public elective
office on the ground that the pardon granted to him did not
expressly provide for the remission of the penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification, particularly the restoration
of his (former President Estrada) right to vote and be voted
upon for public office.
• She invokes Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:
• ART. 36. Pardon; its effects.– A pardon shall not work the restoration
of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such
rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
• ART. 41. The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
shall carry with them xxx—xxx perpetual absolute disqualification
which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted
in the pardon.
48
• Q: IS ERAP QUALIFIED?:
• A: YES. Former President Estrada was granted an
absolute pardon that fully restored all his civil and
political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek
public elective office, the focal point of this controversy.
• The wording of the pardon extended to former President
Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified.
• It is likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code.
• The pardoning power of the President cannot be limited
by legislative action.
• Therefore, it can be argued that any act of Congress by way
of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of
the President. (Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666,
January 21, 2015; J. De Castro)
49
DIPLOMATIC
POWERS
50
51
52
International Implications
54
Pimentel v. Romulo
• No. The signature does not signify the final consent
of the state to the treaty.
• It is the ratification that binds the state to the
provisions thereof.
• Ratification is the act by which the provisions of a
treaty are formally confirmed and approved by a
State.
• There is no legal obligation to ratify a treaty.
• Note: In 2010, President PNOY ratified the
ROME Statute and the Senate concurred.
55
56
57
• Suggested Answer:
• The Supreme Court should declare the treaty abrogation
invalid.
• While the Constitution is silent on whether a treaty
abrogation shall require the concurrence of the Senate to
make it valid and effective, the treaty-ratifying power of
Senate carries with it the power to concur a treaty abrogated
by the President by way of necessary implication.
• Under the doctrine of incorporation, a treaty duly ratified by
the Senate and recognized as such by the contracting State
shall form an integral part of the law of the land.
• The President alone cannot effect the repeal of a law of
the land formed by a joint action of the executive and
legislative branches, whether the law be a statute or a
treaty. To abrogate a treaty, the President’s action must be
approved by the Senate.
58
59
60
61
• ANSWER:
• As the sole organ of our foreign relations and the
constitutionally assigned chief architect of our foreign
policy, the President is vested with the exclusive power
to conduct and manage the country's interface with
other states and governments.
• Being the principal representative of the Philippines, the
Chief Executive speaks and listens for the nation;
initiates, maintains, and develops diplomatic relations
with other states and governments; negotiates and
enters into international agreements; promotes trade,
investments, tourism and other economic relations; and
settles international disputes with other states.
• Rene Saguisag, et al., v. Executive Secretary, et al., GR
No. 212426, January 12, 2016.
62
• ANSWER:
• No court can tell the President to desist from choosing
an executive agreement over a treaty to embody an
international agreement, unless the case falls squarely
within Article VIII, Section 25.
• As can be gleaned from the debates among the
members of the Constitutional Commission, they were
aware that legally binding international agreements were
being entered into by countries in forms other than a
treaty.
• At the same time, it is clear that they were also keen to
preserve the concept of "executive agreements" and the
right of the President to enter into such agreements..
[Rene Saguisag, et al., v. Executive Secretary, et al.,
GR No. 212426, January 12, 2016.]
63
Presidential
Succession
64
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Presidential
Immunity
73
74
75
76