Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consti October 14 2017
Consti October 14 2017
14, 2017
CESAR BENGZON VS FRANKLIN DRILON Tañada vs. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) 146 SCRA
446 (December 29, 1986)
208 SCRA 133 – Political Law – Veto Power of the President
In 1990, Congress sought to reenact some old laws (i.e. FACTS:
Republic Act No. 1797) that were “repealed” during the time of
former President Ferdinand Marcos. These old laws provided Invoking the right of the people to be informed on matters of
certain retirement benefits to retired judges, justices, and public concern as well as the principle that laws to be valid and
members of the constitutional commissions. Congress felt a enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette,
need to restore these laws in order to standardize retirement petitioners filed for writ of mandamus to compel respondent
benefits among government officials. However, President public officials to publish and/or cause to publish various
Corazon Aquino vetoed the bill (House Bill No. 16297) on the presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders,
ground that the law should not give preferential treatment to proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementations and
certain or select government officials. administrative orders.
Meanwhile, a group of retired judges and justices filed a petition
with the Supreme Court asking the court to readjust their The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, moved for
pensions. They pointed out that RA 1797 was never repealed the dismissal of the case, contending that petitioners have no
(by P.D. No. 644) because the said PD was one of those legal personality to bring the instant petition.
unpublished PDs which were subject of the case of Tañada v.
Tuvera. Hence, the repealing law never existed due to non- ISSUE:
publication and in effect, RA 1797 was never repealed. The
Supreme Court then readjusted their pensions.
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is required
Congress took notice of the readjustment and son in the General before any law or statute becomes valid and enforceable.
Appropriations Bill (GAB) for 1992, Congress allotted additional
budget for pensions of retired justices. Congress however did HELD:
the allotment in the following manner: Congress made an item
entitled: “General Fund Adjustment”; included therein are Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of
allotments to unavoidable obligations in different brances of the publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides
government; among such obligations is the allotment for the for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of this provision is
pensions of retired justices of the judiciary.
to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws
However, President Aquino again vetoed the said lines which which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.
provided for the pensions of the retired justices in the judiciary in Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for
the GAB. She explained that that portion of the GAB is already the application of the maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat. It
deemed vetoed when she vetoed H.B. 16297. would be the height of injustive to punish or otherwise burden a
This prompted Cesar Bengzon and several other retired judges citizen for the transgression of a law which he had no notice
and justices to question the constitutionality of the veto made by whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
the President. The President was represented by then Executive
Secretary Franklin Drilon. The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638 reads: there shall
be published in the Official Gazette…. The word “shall” therein
ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the President on that portion
imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That duty
of the General Appropriations bill is constitutional.
must be enforced if the constitutional right of the people to be
HELD: No. The Justices of the Court have vested rights to the informed on matter of public concern is to be given substance
accrued pension that is due to them in accordance to Republic and validity.
Act 1797 which was never repealed. The president has no
power to set aside and override the decision of the Supreme The publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of
Court neither does the president have the power to enact or
general applicability is a requirement of due process. It is a rule
amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors much less to
of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first
the repeal of existing laws.
be officially and specifically informed of its contents. The Court
The Supreme Court also explained that the veto is declared that presidential issuances of general application which
unconstitutional since the power of the president to disapprove have not been published have no force and effect.
any item or items in the appropriations bill does not grant the
authority to veto part of an item and to approve the remaining
portion of said item. It appears that in the same item, the TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
Presidents vetoed some portion of it and retained the others.
This cannot be done. The rule is: the Executive must veto a bill
146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
in its entirety or not at all; the Executive must veto an entire line
item in its entirety or not at all. In this case, the president did not
veto the entire line item of the general adjustment fund. She FACTS:
merely vetoed the portion which pertained to the pensions of the
justices but did not veto the other items covering obligations to This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated
the other departments of the government. on April 24, 1985. Respondent argued that while publication was
necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise” as
when the decrees themselves declared that they were to
become effective immediately upon their approval.
ISSUES:
HELD:
effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of
cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon Constitution, do hereby order:
approval, or in any other date, without its previous publication.
Sec. 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in
application, for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. otherwise provided.
A law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an
intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as an ultra vires act Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as
of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the the "Civil Code of the Philippines," and all other laws inconsistent
public interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified
individual, or some of the people only, and not to the public as a accordingly.
whole.
Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, its publication in the Official Gazette.
shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall
begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of June, in the year of
is fixed by the legislature. Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its ARNAULT V. NAZARENO, G.R. NO. L-3820, JULY 18, 1950
purpose is to inform the public of the content of the law.
DECISION
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must
be made in the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a (En Banc)
requirement for their effectivity. The Supreme Court is not called
upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or modify it if OZAETA, J.:
it finds it impractical.
If the subject of investigation before the committee is Citation: G.R. No. L-6749; 97 Phil. 358; July 30, 1955
within the range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the
proposed testimony of the witness called relates to that subject, Ponente: Labrador
obedience, to its process may be enforced by the committee by
imprisonment. Topic: Legislative investigation; may Senate hold a person in
contempt as a punitive measure.
2. YES, the Senate had the authority to commit
petitioner for contempt for a term beyond its period of
FACTS:
legislative session.
We find no sound reason to limit the power of the This was a petition for habeas corpus filed by Jean Arnault
legislative body to punish for contempt to the end of every against the Director of Prisons, Balagtas. Arnault was
session and not to the end of the last session terminating the
incarcerated pursuant to a resolution by the Senate finding
existence of that body. The very reason for the exercise of the
power to punish for contempt is to enable the legislative body to Arnault in contempt for refusing to disclose the name of a person
perform its constitutional function without impediment or with whom he transacted business in relation to a government
obstruction. Legislative functions may be and in practice are
purchase of of the Buenavista and Tambobong estates. The
performed during recess by duly constituted committees
charged with the duty of performing investigations or conducting circumstances of Arnault's incarceration are described in the
hearing relative to any proposed legislation. To deny to such companion case Arnaultvs. Nazareno (1950) which affirmed the
committees the power of inquiry with process to enforce it would
Legislature's power to hold a person in contempt for defying or
be to defeat the very purpose for which that the power is
recognized in the legislative body as an essential and refusing to comply with an order in a legislative inquiry.
4 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I ACJUCO OCT. 14, 2017
Arnault eventually divulged that he had transacted with one Jess gave the amount of P440,000” and that the situation of petitioner
D. Santos in relation to the Buenavista and Tambobong deal. “has not materially charged since he was committed to prison”,
Upon further inquiry, the Senate, obviously not satisfied with clearly shows that the Senate believes that Arnault was still
Arnault's explanations, adopted Resolution No. 114. The title of trying to deceive them. The CFI on the other hand arrogated
the resolution states: unto itself to review such finding and held that Arnault
satisfactorily answered the questions of the Senate in its
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL
investigation of the Buenavista and Tambobong deal.
COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE BUENAVISTA AND
TAMBOBONG ESTATES DEAL, AND ORDERING THE There is an inherent fundamental error in the course of action
DIRECTOR OF PRISON TO CONTINUE HOLDING JEAN L. that the lower court followed. It assumed that courts have the
ARNAULT IN HIS CUSTODY, AND IN CONFINEMENT AND right to review the findings of legislative bodies in the exercise
DETENTION AT THE NEW BILIBID PRISON AT of the prerogative of legislation, or interfere with their
MUNTINLUPA, RIZAL, UNTIL THE SAID ARNAULT SHALL proceedings or their discretion in what is known as the legislative
HAVE PURGED HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT OF THE SENATE. process. The Judicial department has no right or power or
authority to do this, in the same manner that the legislative
xxx
department may not invade the judicial realm in the
WHEREAS, the Senate holds and finds that the situation of the ascertainment of truth and in the application and interpretation
said Jean L. Arnault has not materially changed since he was of the law, in what is known as the judicial process, because that
committed to prison for contempt of the Senate, and since the would be in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of
Supreme Court of the Philippines, in a judgment long since separation of powers established by the Constitution. The only
become final, upheld the power and authority of the Senate to instances when judicial intervention may lawfully be invoke
hold the said Jean L. Arnault in custody, detention, and are when there has been a violation of a constitutional
confinement, said power and authority having been held to be inhibition, or when there has been an arbitrary exercise of
coercive rather than punitive, and fully justified until the said the legislative discretion.
Jean L. Arnault should have given the information which he had
2. YES. The legislature may hold a person in contempt or
withheld and continues contumaciously to withhold;
incarcerate him as a punitive measure.
WHEREAS, the insolent and manifest untruthful statements
Although the resolution studiously avoids saying that the
made by the said Jean L. Arnault on the occasions above
confinement is a punishment, but merely seeks to coerce the
referred to constitute a continuing contempt of the Senate, and
petitioner into telling the truth, the intention is evident that the
an added affront to its dignity and authority, such that , were they
continuation of the imprisonment ordered is in fact partly
to be condoned or overlooked, the power and authority of the
punitive. This may be inferred from the confining made in the
Senate to conduct investigations would become futile and
resolution that petitioner's acts were arrogant and contumacious
ineffectual because they could be defied by any person of
and constituted an affront to the Senate's dignity and authority.
sufficient stubbornness and malice;
The legislature has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses.
This power is founded upon reason and policy. Said power must
xxx be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative
power, or necessary to effectuate said power. How could a
The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Petitioner Arnault
legislative body obtain the knowledge and information on which
and ordered his release.
to base intended legislation if it cannot require and compel the
ISSUE: disclosure of such knowledge and information, if it is impotent to
punish a defiance of its power and authority? The legislative
Whether or not Petitioner may be released from his Senate-
department should not be constrained to look to the courts
imposed incarceration.
whenever for every act of refusal, every act of defiance, every
1. Whether or not the CFI has the right to review the findings of act of contumacy with which it is faced.
the Senate.
The exercise of the legislature's authority to deal with the defiant
2. Whether or not the Senate may hold a person in contempt or and contumacious witness should be supreme and is not subject
incarcerate him as a punitive rather than as a coercive measure. to judicial interference, except when there is a manifest and
absolute disregard of discretion and a mere exertion of arbitrary
HELD: power coming within the reach of constitutional limitations.
YES. The Senate may continue to keep Petitioner incarcerated. The judgment appealed from should be, as it hereby is,
reversed, and the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas
1. NO. In the first place, the CFI did NOT have the right to review
corpus denied. The order of the court allowing the petitioner to
the findings of the Senate. In the above quoted resolution, the
give bail is declared null and void and the petitioner is hereby
Senate in stating that petitioner “has failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse, to reveal the person to whom he
5 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I ACJUCO OCT. 14, 2017
ordered to be recommitted to the custody of the respondent. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EXECUTIVE
With cost against the petitioner-appellee. SECRETARY ERMITA
Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and CAMILO SABIO VS RICHARD GORDON
complementary to each other, should not be considered as
pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically 504 SCRA 704 – Political Law – Inquiry in aid of legislation –
relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the public officers
aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for
legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a On February 20, 2006, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago
question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in introduced Senate Res. No. 455 “directing an inquiry in aid of
pursuit of Congress’ oversight function. Ultimately, the power of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines
Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine
Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and
the principle of separation of powers. PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged
improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of
While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the Directors.” Pursuant to this, on May 8, 2006, Senator Richard
legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress to legislate Gordon, wrote Chairman Camilo Sabio of the PCGG inviting him
by refusing to comply with its demands for information. When to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly
Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for conducted by the Committee on Government Corporations and
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. Chairman
claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment. At
they are department heads. Only one executive official may be the same time, he invoked Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 “No
exempted from this power — the President on whom executive member or staff of the Commission shall be required to testify or
power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of Congress except produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or administrative
through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.”
the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect Apparently, the purpose is to ensure PCGG’s unhampered
accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is performance of its task. Gordon’s Subpoenae Ad Testificandum
sanctioned by a long-standing custom. The requirement then was repeatedly ignored by Sabio hence he threatened Sabio to
to secure presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is be cited with contempt.
only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. For
under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, the appearance ISSUE: Whether or not Section 4 of EO No. 1 is constitutional.
of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on HELD: No. It can be said that the Congress’ power of inquiry
their part. Section 1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances has gained more solid existence and expansive construal. The
of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress Court’s high regard to such power is rendered more evident
is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the in Senate v. Ermita, where it categorically ruled that “the power
department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive
of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself branch.” Verily, the Court reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that
or by the Executive Secretary. “the operation of government, being a legitimate subject for
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how legislation, is a proper subject for investigation” and that “the
department heads are implementing the statutes which it has power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power to legislate”.
issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of transactions involving public interest.
duty. In such instances, Section 22, in keeping with the Article III, Section 7
separation of powers, states that Congress may
only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in The right of the people to information on matters of public
which Congress requires their appearance is ‘in aid of concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
legislation’ under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
the same reasons stated in Arnault. 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.
Read full text These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote
transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the
government, as well as provide the people sufficient information
NOTES: The SC ruled that Section 1 and Section 2a are to enable them to exercise effectively their constitutional rights.
valid. The rest invalid. Armed with the right information, citizens can participate in
public discussions leading to the formulation of government
On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued Memorandum
policies and their effective implementation.
Circular No. 151, revoking Executive Order No. 464 and
Memorandum Circular No. 108. She advised executive officials
NERI VS. SENATE COMMITTEE
and employees to follow and abide by the Constitution, existing
laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the case
of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative
MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ
inquiries in aid of legislation.
ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
DEFENSE AND SECURITY
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
ISSUE:
WON the Joint Committee performing election canvass even
after the termination of congress’ session is constitutional.
RULING:
Sec. 15. Art VI - The Congress shall convene once every year
on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a
different date is fixed by law, 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, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call
a special session at any time. Contrary to petitioner's argument,
however, 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 June 11, 2004.Section 15,
Article VI of the Constitution cited by petitioner does not pertain
to the term of Congress, 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).Section 4 of Article VIII
provides that "[t]he
Term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall
commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election." Similarly,
Section 7 provides that"[t]he Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years.
Consequently, there being no law to the contrary, until June 30,
2004, the present Twelfth Congress to which the present
legislators belong cannot be said to have "passed out of legal
existence. "The legislative functions of the Twelfth Congress may
have come to a close upon the final adjournment of its
regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this does not affect its
non-legislative functions. In fact, the joint public session of
both Houses of Congress convened by express directive of Section
4, Article VII to canvass the votes for and to proclaim the newly
elected President and VP has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die
until it has accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For
only when a board of canvassers has completed its functions is
it rendered functus officio. Its membership may change, but it
retains its authority as a board until it has accomplished its
purposes. Since the Twelfth Congress has not yet completed its
non-legislative duty to canvass the votes and proclaim the duly
elected President and VP, its existence as the National Board of
Canvassers, as well as that of the Joint Committee to which it
referred the preliminary tasks of authenticating and canvassing
the certificates of canvass, has not become functus officio
10 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I ACJUCO OCT. 14, 2017
CASE DIGEST: ESTRADA VS. ARROYO; The Court defines a political issue as “those questions which,
ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
9:55 PM sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
G.R. No. 146738 Estrada vs. Arroyo branch of the government. It is concerned with issues
G.R. No 146710-15 Estrada vs. Desierto dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a particular
March 2, 2001 measure.”
FACTS:
The Court made a distinction between the Aquino
Estrada was inaugurated as president of the Republic of the presidency and the Arroyo presidency. The Court said that
Philippines on June 30, 1998 with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as while the Aquino government was a government spawned
his Vice President. by the direct demand of the people in defiance to the 1973
Constitution, overthrowing the old government entirely, the
In October 2000, Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, a Arroyo government on the other hand was a government
close friend of the President, alleged that he had personally exercising under the 1987 constitution, wherein only the
given Estrada money as payoff from jueteng hidden in a bank office of the president was affected. In the former, it The
account known as “Jose Velarde” – a grassroots-based question of whether the previous president (president
numbers game. Singson’s allegation also caused controversy Estrada) truly resigned subjects it to judicial review. The
across the nation, which culminated in the House of Court held that the issue is legal and not political.
Representatives’ filing of an impeachment case against Estrada
on November 13, 2000. House Speaker Manny Villar fast- For the president to be deemed as having resigned, there must
tracked the impeachment complaint. The impeachment suit was be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by
brought to the Senate and an impeachment court was formed, acts of relinquishment. It is important to follow the succession
with Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as presiding officer. of events that struck petitioner prior his leaving the palace.
Estrada, pleaded “not guilty”. Furthermore, the quoted statements extracted from the Angara
diaries, detailed Estrada’s implied resignation On top of all
The exposé immediately ignited reactions of rage. On January these, the press release he issued regarding is
18, a crowd continued to grow at EDSA, bolstered by students acknowledgement of the oath-taking of Arroyo as president
from private schools and left-wing organizations. Activists from despite his questioning of its legality and his emphasis on
the group Bayan and Akbayan as well as lawyers of the leaving the presidential seat for the sake of peace. The Court
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and other bar associations held that petitioner Estrada had resigned by the use of
joined in the thousands of protesters. the totality test: prior, contemporaneous and posterior
facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material
On January 19, The Philippine National Police and the Armed relevance on the issue.
Forces of the Philippines also withdrew their support for Estrada
and joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. As to the issue of the peitioner’s contention that he is immuned
from suits, the Court held that petitioner is no longer entitled to
At 2:00pm, Estrada appeared on television for the first time since absolute immunity from suit. The Court added that, given the
the beginning of the protests and maintains that he will not intent of the 1987 Constitution to breathe life to the policy that a
resign. He said that he wanted the impeachment trial to public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting
continue, stressing that only a guilty verdict will remove him from President, cannot claim executive immunity for his alleged
office. criminal acts committed while a sitting President. From the
deliberations, the intent of the framers is clear that the
At 6:15pm, Estrada again appeared on television, calling for a immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with
snap presidential election to be held concurrently with his tenure (the term during which the incumbent actually holds
congressional and local elections on May 14, 2001. He added office) and not his term (time during which the officer may claim
that he will not run in this election. to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the
several incumbents shall succeed one another).
On January 20, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of
presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada “constructively
resigned his post”. Noon of the same day, Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at
EDSA, becoming the 14th president of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not the case at bar a political or justiciable
issue. If justiciable, whether or not petitioner Estrada was a
president-on-leave or did he truly resign.
HELD:
11 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I ACJUCO OCT. 14, 2017
While the alternates are not these officials, they are [ G. R. NO. 156982, SEPTEMBER 08, 2004 ]
their alternates, and still under §7, their “acts shall be NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISSION, PETITIONER,
considered the acts of their principals”. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, JUANITO G. ESPINO,
CLU v. Executive Secretary is controlling: “The DIRECTOR IV, NCR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND
prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or ERNESTO C. EULALIA, RESIDENT AUDITOR, NATIONAL
employment under Section 13, Article VII of the AMNESTY COMMISSION. RESPONDENTS.
Constitution must not, however, be construed as
applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials FACTS:
specified therein without additional compensation in an
ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required Petitioner National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is a
by the primary functions of said officials' office. The government agency created on March 25, 1994 by then
reason is that these posts do not comprise `any other President Fidel V. Ramos through Proclamation No. 347. The
office' within the contemplation of the constitutional NAC is tasked to receive, process and review amnesty
prohibition but are properly an imposition of additional applications. It is composed of seven members: a Chairperson,
duties and functions on said officials.” three regular members appointed by the President, and the
On the term ex-officio: “The term ex officio means Secretaries of Justice, National Defense and Interior and Local
`from office; by virtue of office'. It refers to an `authority Government as ex officio members.
derived from official character merely, not expressly
conferred upon the individual character, but rather
annexed to the official position.' Ex officio likewise It appears that after personally attending the initial NAC
denotes an `act done in an official character, or as a meetings, the three ex officio members turned over said
consequence of office, and without any other responsibility to their representatives who were
appointment or authority than that conferred by the paid honoraria beginning December 12, 1994. However, on
office.' An ex officio member of a board is one who is a October 15, 1997, NAC resident auditor Eulalia disallowed
member by virtue of his title to a certain office, and on audit the payment of honoraria to these representatives
without further warrant or appointment. x x x” amounting to P255,750 for the period December 12, 1994 to
On the right to receive remuneration for an ex June 27, 1997, pursuant to COA Memorandum No. 97-038.
officio position: "The ex officio position being actually
and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it ISSUE:
follows that the official concerned has no right to
receive additional compensation for his services in the Whether representatives can be entitled to payment
said position. The reason is that these services are intended for ex-officio members
already paid for and covered by the compensation
attached to his principal office. It should be obvious that RULING:
if, say, the Secretary of Finance attends a meeting of
the Monetary Board as an ex officio member thereof,
he is actually and in legal contemplation performing the The representatives in fact assumed their
primary function of his principal office in defining policy responsibilities not by virtue of a new appointment but by mere
in monetary banking matters, which come under the designation from the ex officio members who were themselves
jurisdiction of his department. For such attendance, also designated as such.
therefore, he is not entitled to collect any extra
compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem
or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such There is a considerable difference between an
euphemism. By whatever name it is designated, such appointment and designation. An appointment is the selection
additional compensation is prohibited by the by the proper authority of an individual who is to exercise the
Constitution." powers and functions of a given office; a designation merely
CAB: Petitioner officials who are on the NHA Board as connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon
ALTERNATES of the Cabinet members and ex-officio a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier
members of the NHA are prohibited from receiving appointment.
additional compensation. To rule otherwise would be
giving the alternates a better right than their principals.
The alternates cannot receive the compensation to Designation does not entail payment of additional
which their principals are not entitled to in the first benefits or grant upon the person so designated the right to
place. claim the salary attached to the position. Without an
appointment, a designation does not entitle the officer to receive
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed. the salary of the position.
13 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I ACJUCO OCT. 14, 2017
EXECUTIVE POWER
MARCOS VS MANGLAPUS G.R. No. 189028 ALMARIO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 701
G.R. No. 88211 September 15 1989 SCRA 269
ALMARIO v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
FACTS: G.R. No. 189028
Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three July 16, 2013
year exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines. 701 SCRA 269
The call is about to request of Marcos family to order the
respondents to issue travel order to them and to enjoin the FACTS: The National Artists Awards Committee. and the NCCA
petition of the President's decision to bar their return to the decided to team up and jointly administer the National Artists
Philippines. Award. There were three deliberations for determining the
nominees and on the final deliberation, a final list of four names
ISSUE: was agreed upon namely: Manuel Conde, Ramon Santos,
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Lazaro Francisco and Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz.
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines. They submitted this recommendation to the President.
According to respondents, the aforementioned letter was
RULING: referred by the Office of the President to the Committee on
Honors. Meanwhile, the Office of the President allegedly
Yes received nominations from various sectors, cultural groups and
individuals strongly endorsing private respondents.
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The
executive power shall be vested in the President of the Acting on this recommendation, a series of Proclamations were
Philippines." The phrase, however, does not define what is issued declaring Lazaro Francisco, Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz and
meant by executive power although the same article tackles on private respondents, Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and
exercises of certain powers by the President such as appointing Moreno, respectively, as National Artists.
power during recess of the Congress (S.16), control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices (Section Hence, the petition. All of the petitioners claim that former
17), power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and President Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her discretion in
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final disregarding the results of the rigorous screening and selection
judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section process for the Order of National Artists and in substituting her
21), borrowing power (Section 20), budgetary power (Section own choice for those of the Deliberation Panels.
22), informing power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the President amounted to
cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers grave abuse of discretion with regards to the violation of the right
enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the to equal protection
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive. RULING: Yes. It should be recalled that one of the respondents
was disqualified to be nominated for being the Executive
Director of the NCCA at that time while respondents Masa and
Caparas did not make it to the preliminary shortlist and
respondent Moreno was not included in the second shortlist.
RULING: The qualified political agency doctrine, all executive The petitioners, who are officials and employees of several
and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive government departments and agencies, were paid incentive
Department, and the acts of the Secretaries of such benefits for the year 1992. Then, on Jan. 19, 1993, then Pres.
departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course Ramos issued AO 29 authorizing the grant of productivity
of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the maximum amount of
Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. It P1,000.00 and reiterating the prohibition under Sec. 7 of AO
is corollary to the control power of the President as provided for 268, enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without
under Art. VII Sec. 17 of the 1987 Constitution: "The President prior approval of the President. Sec. 4 of AO 29 directed all
shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and departments, offices and agencies which authorized payment of
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." productivity incentive bonus for the year 1992 in excess of P1,
000.00 to immediately cause the refund of the excess. In
In the case at bar, the DENR Secretary can validly reorganize compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies
the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional of the government concerned caused the deduction from
Offices from Cotabato City to Koronadal, South Cotabato. The petitioners’ salaries or allowances of the amounts needed to
exercise of this authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter cover the alleged overpayments.
ego, is presumed to be the acts of the President for the latter
had not expressly repudiated the same.
Issue: Whether or not AO 29 and AO 268 were issued in the
valid exercise of presidential control over the executive
departments
Commercial Law – Corporation Law – Foreign Corporation – Petitioner National Electrification Administration is a GOCC
License Requirement created under PD 269. NEA is charged with the responsibility of
In 1996, Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited (HPPL)won a organizing, financing and regulating electric cooperatives
public bidding made by the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority throughout the country. Government employee salaries were
(SBMA). The project was to develop and operate a modern raised via a Joint Resolution of Congress, urging the President
marine container terminal within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. to revise the existing compensation. This was made into a 4-
The SBMA Board of Directors already declared HPPL as the year program. In 1996, President Ramos issued EO 389 to
winner but later on, the Office of the President reversed the implement the final year salary increases authorized by the joint
decision of the Board and ordered a rebidding. In the rebidding Resolution. EO 389 called for a 2-tranche salary increase: one
however, HPPL was no longer among the qualified bidders. on January 1, 1997, and another on November 1, 1997.In
Eventually, HPPL filed a petition for injunction to enjoin SBMA January 1997, NEA implemented the salary
from conducting the rebidding. increases. However, they implemented such increase in a
single lump sum beginning January 19, 1997 (NEA accelerated
ISSUE: Whether or not Hutchison has the right to file an the implementation by paying the second tranche starting
injunction case against SBMA. January 1 instead of November 1). The Commission on Audit
issued a Notice of Suspension and Notices of Disallowance. The
HELD: No. The declaration made by the SBMA Board declaring Notices of Disallowance were appealed by NEA, but rejected the
HPPL as the winning bidder was neither final nor unassailable. COA en banc. The decision of COA was then challenged in the
Under LOI No. 620, all projects undertaken by the SBMA are Supreme Court.
subject to the approval of the Office of the President. Hence, the
Board of SBMA is under the control and supervision of the ISSUES:
President of the Philippines. Therefore, the declaration made by 1)
the Board did not vest any right in favor of HPPL.
Whether or not COA committed a grave abuse of discretion
Further, HPPL cannot sue in the Philippines. It is a foreign amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing
corporation registered under the laws of the British Virgin the increased salaries
Islands. It did not register here in the Philippines. –
NO2)
HPPL cannot invoke that it was suing only on an isolated
transaction. The conduct of bidding is not an isolated Whether or not NEA is allowed to accelerate the
transaction. It is “doing business” here in the Philippines. The implementation of the salaries depending on the availability
Supreme Court emphasized that as a general rule, “doing” or of funds
“engaging in” or “transacting” business in the Philippines is a –
case to case basis. It has often been held that a single act or NO
transaction may be considered as “doing business” when a
corporation performs acts for which it was created or exercises HELD:
some of the functions for which it was organized. The amount or
volume of the business is of no moment, for even a singular act No, the Commission on Audit did not commit any grave
cannot be merely incidental or casual if it indicates the foreign abuse of discretion. Neither is NEA allowed to accelerate
corporation’s intention to do business. the implementation.
On NEA’s accelerated implementation
Participating in the bidding process constitutes “doing business”
because it shows the foreign corporation’s intention to engage The Court ruled that such acceleration was not in accordance
in business here. The bidding for the concession contract is but with the law. NEA claimed that RA8250 (GAA of 1997) was their
an exercise of the corporation’s reason for creation or existence. legal basis. However, such law was not self-
Therefore, HPPL has done business here without license. It executory. Budgetary appropriations under the GAA do not
cannot now sue in the Philippines without license because its constitute unbridled authority to government agencies to spend
participation in the bidding is not merely an isolated transaction. the appropriated amounts as they wish. Itemization of the
The primary purpose of the license requirement is to compel a Personal Services (the appropriation used by NEA) is prepared
foreign corporation desiring to do business within the Philippines after the enactment of the GAA, and requires the approval of the
to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state and to President. The execution of the GAA is subject to a program of
enable the government to exercise jurisdiction over them for the expenditure to be approved by the President, which will be the
regulation of their activities in this country. basis for the fund release. No portion of the appropriations in the
GAA shall be used for payment of any salary increase, unless
authorized by law. Salary increases are subject to the approval
of the President.
Art 7, Sec 17
“The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.”