Module 4 Executive Dept

Module 4 - Executive Department
Executive Power – the power to enforce and

administer the laws.
Where vested - vested in the president of the

Philippines. (art. Vii, sec. 1)
Qualifications (sec. 2):

1. Natural born
2. Registered voter
3. Read and write
4. 40 years old
5. 10 yrs residency
Vice president (sec. 3)

 Same qualification
 May be appointed to cabinet without CA
confirmation
Term of office
President – no reelection (sec. 4)

Vice-President – only 1 reelection (Sec. 4)
But: No person who has succeeded as

COPYRIGHT BY ERNESTO C. SALAO
NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, PUBLICAITON AND DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT
WRITTEN CONSENT OF COPYRIGHT OWENR
President and has served for more than 4
years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time.
A. Privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications
Privileges of the President:
1. Official residence
2. Salary
- not reduced during tenure
- no increase during term
3. Presidential or Executive immunity
Coverage: The President is immune from suit during

his incumbency (but not against impeachment).
In re: Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180, October 24,
1986
Bermudez filed a petition for declaratory relief
on whether the provisions of the Freedom
Constitution referred to the incumbent President
or the previously-elected president.
The Supreme Court dismissed the action on
ground that a suit cannot be brought against the
incumbent President. The petition for declaratory
relief was essentially a suit against President
Aquino, the incumbent president.
Soliven v. Makasiar (1988)
The President may not be prevented from
instituting a suit.
The immunity may be invoked ONLY by the
holder of the office. Nothing prevents the
President (and only the President) from waiving
the privilege and submitting to court's
jurisdiction.
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
Pres. Clinton was charged with sexual
harassment by Paula Jones for acts done while he
was Governor of Arkansas.
Held: The sitting president can be involved in a
lawsuit during his tenure for actions not related
to his official duties as President, and before his
term commenced.
Purpose of presidential immunity
1. Separation of powers – The separation of powers
principle is viewed as demanding the executive’s
independence from the judiciary, so that the
President should not be subject to the judiciary’s
whim. (Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367,
May 23, 1995)
2. Public convenience – The grant is to assure the
exercise of presidential duties and functions free
from any hindrance or distraction, considering
that the presidency is a job that, aside from
requiring all of the office-holders’ time, demands
undivided attention. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R.
No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
Non-Sitting President
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15,
March 2, 2001
Once out of office, even before the end of the 6-
year term, immunity for non-official acts is lost.
Such was the case of former President Joseph
Estrada. Immunity cannot be claimed to shield a
non-sitting President from prosecution for alleged
criminal acts done while sitting in office.
In Re: Petition for the Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data in favor of Noriel H. Rodriguez;
Noriel H. Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, et al., G.R. Nos. 191805 &193160.
November 15, 2011
A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit, even though the acts were done during
her tenure. Former President Arroyo cannot use
the presidential immunity from suit to shield
herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess
whether, within the context of amparo
proceedings, she was responsible or accountable
for the abduction of Rodriguez.
President ONLY can invoke Immunity
BUT: Other Officials can invoke the
Presidential Communications Privilege
Neri v. Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (2008)
Neri, along with other officers, was invited to
testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee regarding the NBN-ZTE project.
Neri refused to answer, invoking “executive
privilege”. In particular, he refused to answer
the questions on (a) whether or not President
Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b)
whether or not she directed him to prioritize
it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to
approve. He later refused to attend the other
hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the SBRC
averring that the communications between
GMA and Neri is privileged and that the
jurisprudence laid down in Senate v. Ermita
be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.
Held:
SC upheld the invocation of privilege.
The communications elicited by the three (3)
questions are covered by the presidential
communications privilege.
1st, the communications relate to a
“quintessential and non-delegable power” of
the President, i.e. the power to enter into an
executive agreement with other countries.
This authority of the President to enter into
executive agreements without the
concurrence of the Legislature has
traditionally been recognized in Philippine
jurisprudence.
2nd, the communications are “received” by a
close advisor of the President. Under the
“operational proximity” test, petitioner can be
considered a close advisor, being a member of
President Arroyo’s Cabinet. And,
3rd, there is no adequate showing of a
compelling need that would justify the
limitation of the privilege and of the
unavailability of the information elsewhere by
an appropriate investigating authority.
Aside from these, other executive privileges
include:
1. Deliberative process privilege
2. Military or State Secrets
3. Identity of government informers in some
circumstances
4. Information related to pending
investigations
5. Foreign relations
Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege
AKBAYAN v. Aquino (July 16, 2008)
AKBAYAN and the other petitioners filed a
petition asking for the government to release
the records of the negotiations leading up to
the JPEPA.
The SC denied the petition. While there was
indeed a right to information on matters of
public concern, this was only on a case-by-
case basis. The validity of executive privilege
depends on ground invoked to justify it and
context in which it is made. The privileged
status of a privileged document rests not on
the need to protect national security but on
the obvious realization that officials will not
communicate candidly among themselves if
people will find out what they talk about
anyway. Here, the negotiations of the JPEPA
falls under the diplomatic negotiations
privilege.
But such privilege is only presumptive.
Recognizing a type of information as
privileged does not mean that it will be
considered privileged in all instances. Only
after a consideration of the context in which
the claim is made may it be determined if
there is a public interest that calls for the
disclosure of the desired information, strong
enough to overcome its traditionally
privileged status. (AKBAYAN Citizen’s Action
Party v. Aquino, et al., G.R No. 170516, July 16,
2008)
Prohibitions, Inhibitions and Disqualifications
a. President and VP shall not receive any other
emolument from the government or any
other source (Sec. 6, Art. VII)
b. President, VP, Cabinet Secretaries, Deputies
and Assistants shall not hold any other
office or employment during their tenure
(Sec. 13, Art. VII)
Unless otherwise provided in the
Constitution (e.g. VP can be appointed as
a Cabinet Member without the need of
confirmation by Commission on
Appointments; Sec. of Justice sits in the
Judicial and Bar Council)
EXCEPTIONS:
Prohibition not applicable when posts
occupied by the Executive officials
without additional compensation in an
ex-officio capacity, as provided by law and
as required by the primary functions of
the said official’s office. (National Amnesty
Commission v. COA, G.R. No. 156982,
September 2, 2004)
b. President’s spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th
civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as:
1. Members of the Constitutional
Commissions;
2. Office of the Ombudsman;
3. Secretaries and Undersecretaries;
4. Chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices, including GOCCs and their
subsidiaries.
NOTE: If the spouse, etc., was already in
any of the above offices at the time
before his/her spouse became
President, he/she may continue in
office. What is prohibited is
appointment and reappointment, not
continuation in office.
Spouses, etc., can be appointed to the
judiciary and as ambassadors and
consuls.
c. President, VP, Cabinet Secretaries,
Deputies and Assistants shall not practice,
directly or indirectly, any other
profession during their tenure. (Sec. 13,
art. VII)
d. President, VP, Cabinet Secretaries,
Deputies and Assistants shall not
participate in any business or be
financially interested in any contract with,
or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government, including
GOCCs. (Sec. 13, Art. VII)
e. Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct
of office. (Sec. 13, Art. VII)
B. Powers
1. Executive and administrative powers in

general
Executive Power
The President shall have control of all executive

departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure
that laws are faithfully executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
Administrative Power
Power concerned with the work of applying
policies and enforcing orders as determined
by proper governmental organs. It enables the
President to fix a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency and check the official
conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations.
(Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998)
Specific powers of the President
1. Appointing power (Sec. 16, Art. VII)
2. Power of control over all executive
departments, bureaus and offices (Sec. 17,
Art. VII)
3. Commander-in-Chief powers (calling-out
power, power to place the Philippines
under martial law, and power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus)
(Sec. 18, Art. VII)
4. Pardoning power (Sec. 19, Art. VII)
5. Borrowing power (Sec. 20, Art. VII)
6. Diplomatic/Treaty-making power (Sec.
21, Art. VII)
7. Budgetary power (Sec. 22, Art. VII)
8. Informing power (Sec. 23, Art. VII)
9. Veto power (Sec. 27, Art. VI)
10. Power of general supervision over local
governments (Sec. 4, Art. X)
11. Power to call special session
(Sec.15,Art.VI)
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October
27, 1989
Powers of the president is not limited to those
set forth in the Constitution.
Whatever power inherent in the government
that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
executive. These unstated residual powers are
implied from the grant of executive power and
which are necessary for the President to
comply with his duties under the Constitution.
2. Power of appointment
a) In general
Appointment
The selection, by the authority vested with the
power, of an individual who is to exercise the
functions of a given office. It may be made
verbally but it is usually done in writing
through what is called the commission.
NOTE: While Congress and the Constitution in
certain cases may prescribe the qualifications
for particular offices, the determination of
who among those who are qualified will be
appointed is the President’s prerogative.
(Pimentel, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. No.
164978, October 13, 2005)
Designation
The imposition of additional duties on a
person already in the public service. It is
considered only as an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security
of tenure on the person named. (Binamira v.
Garrucho, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, 1990)
NOTE: The President has the power to
temporarily designate an officer already in the
government service or any other competent
person to perform the functions of an office in
the executive branch. In no case shall the
temporary designation exceed one year.
Commission

Written evidence of appointment
Kinds of Appointments:
1. Permanent appointment – extended to persons
possessing the requisite eligibility. Entitled to
constitutional guarantee on security of tenure.
2. Temporary (or acting) appointment – without

such eligibility, revocable at will, appointing
power not yet decided on a permanent
appointment (not subject to CA confirmation).
Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978,

October 13, 2005
The essence of an appointment in an acting
capacity is its temporary nature. In case of a
vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego
of the President, such as the office of
Department Secretary, the President must
necessarily appoint the alter ego of her choice
as Acting Secretary before the permanent
appointee of her choice could assume office.
Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the
President the obligation to appoint
automatically the undersecretary as her
temporary alter ego.
An alter ego, whether temporary or
permanent, holds a position of great trust and
confidence. Acting appointments are a way of
temporarily filling important offices but, if
abused, they can also be a way of
circumventing the need for confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. However,
we find no abuse in the present case.
3. Regular appointment – made when congress is in
session, takes effect after CA confirmation, and
once approved, continues until end of term.
4. Ad interim – made while congress is not in session,

takes effect immediately, but ceases to be valid if
disapproved by CA or upon next adjournment of
congress.
Note: Ad interim – permanent appointment

(PLM v. IAC, 140 SCRA22)
Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,

April 2, 2002
Disapproval of the appointment by the CA,
or adjournment by Congress without the CA
(inaction) acting on the appointment means
DISAPPROVAL.
Effect: the appointee can no longer be
extended a new appointment, inasmuch as
the disapproval is a final decision of the
Commission in the exercise of its checking
power on the appointing authority of the
President.
But when an ad interim appointment is by-
passed because of lack of time or failure of
the Commission on Appointments to
organize, there is no final decision by the
Commission to give or withhold its consent
to the appointment. Absent such decision,
the President is free to renew the ad interim
appointment.
STEPS IN APPOINTING PROCESS
1. Nomination by the President

2. CA Confirmation
3. Issuance of the commission
4. Acceptance by the appointee
Commission on Appointments
Composed of the President of the Senate as ex

officio Chairman, and 12 Senators and 12 members
of HR (elected on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties, party-list
included).
Appointments subject to CA confirmation (Sec.

16, Art. VII)
1. Heads of the executive departments
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls
3. Officers of the armed forces (colonel or naval

captain)
Note: Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) is no

longer part of the Philippine Navy or the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. The
promotion and appointment of respondent
officers of the PCG will not require
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. (Soriano v. Lista, G.R. No.
153881, March 24, 2003)
4. Other officers whose appointment is vested by

the Constitution
e.g.
1.Constitutional commissions chair and
members (Sec. 1, Art. IX-B, C, D)
2. Regular members of the JBC

Not Subject to CA confirmation:
1. He shall also appoint all other officers whose

appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law
2. And those whom he may be authorized by law to
appoint.
Note: Congress may vest appointing power to

President, courts, or in heads of depts., agencies,
commissions, or boards.
Other limitations on the power of appointment
1. President cannot appoint spouse and

relatives by consanguinity or affinity within
the 4th civil degree as: Chairmen and
Members of the Constitutional
Commissions; in the Office of the
Ombudsman; Secretaries and
Undersecretaries; and Chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including GOCCs and
their subsidiaries.
2. Appointment by an Acting President – remain

effective unless revoked by the elected President
within 90 days from assumption of office (Sec.
14, Art. VII)
3. Midnight appointments - 2 months immediately
before next presidential election and up to the
end of term, appointment is prohibited except
temporary appointments to executive position
when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety. (Sec. 15,
Art. VII)
Ban on midnight appointment does not

include the Supreme Court
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March

17, 2010
Sec. 9 (Art. VIII) states that the appointment

of Supreme Court Justices can only be made
by the President upon the submission of a
list of at least three nominees by the JBC;
Sec. 4(1) of the Article mandates the
President to fill the vacancy within 90 days
from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Had the framers intended to extend the
prohibition contained in Sec. 15, Art. VII to
the appointment of Members of the
Supreme Court, they could have explicitly
done so. They could not have ignored the
meticulous ordering of the provisions. They
would have easily and surely written the
prohibition made explicit in Sec. 15, Art. VII
as being equally applicable to the
appointment of Members of the Supreme
Court in Art. VIII itself, most likely in Sec. 4
(1), Art. VIII. That such specification was not
done only reveals that the prohibition
against the President or Acting President
making appointments within two months
before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of the President’s or Acting
President’s term does not refer to the
Members of the Supreme Court.
Power of removal
Implied from power of appointment.
Members of the cabinet – may be removed anytime.

Legally speaking, their separation is effected not by
process of removal but by the expiration of term.
(Alajar v. Alba, 100 Phil. 683)
But: President cannot remove officials who are

removable by impeachment, or judges who are
subject to disciplinary authority of SC.
Emilio Gonzales III v. Ochoa, G. R. No.

196231 & 196232, February 26, 2014
Sec. 8(2) of RA 6770 vesting disciplinary
authority on the President over the Deputy
Ombudsman violates the independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman and is, thus,
unconstitutional. Subjecting the Deputy
Ombudsman to discipline and removal by the
President, whose own alter egos and officials
in the Executive Department are subject to the
Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot
but seriously place at risk the independence
of the Office of the Ombudsman itself.
Xxx
What is true for the Ombudsman must be
equally and necessarily true for her Deputies
who act as agents of the Ombudsman in the
performance of their duties.
3. Power of control and supervision
Control - The power of an officer to alter or modify

or nullify or to set aside what a subordinate has
done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute one’s own judgment for that of a
subordinate.
Supervision - Overseeing, or the power or
authority of an officer to see that subordinate
officers perform their duties, and if the latter fail
or neglect to fulfill them, then the former may take
such action or steps as prescribed by law to make
them perform these duties.
Administrative supervision is limited to the
authority of the department or its equivalent to:
(1) generally oversee the operations of such
agencies and insure that they are managed
effectively, efficiently and economically but
without interference with day-to-day activities;
(2) require the submission of reports and cause
the conduct of management audit, performance
evaluation and inspection to determine
compliance with policies, standards and
guidelines of the department;
(3) take such action as may be necessary for the
proper performance of official functions, including
rectification of violations, abuses and other forms
of mal-administration;
(4) review and pass upon budget proposals of
such agencies but may not increase or add to
them.
b) Executive departments and offices
Doctrine of qualified political agency
The acts of the secretaries of the Executive

departments performed and promulgated in the
regular course of business are presumptively the
acts of the Chief Executive. (Villena v. Secretary of
the Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939)
Delegation to the Executive Secretary
The Chief Executive may delegate to his Executive
Secretary acts which the Constitution does not
command that he perform in person. The
President is not expected to perform in person all
the multifarious executive and administrative
functions. The office of the Executive Secretary is
an auxiliary unit which assists the President.
Lacson-Magallanes Co. v. Paño (1967)
Delegation of the power to reorganize to

Cabinet Members exercising control over a
particular department
DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees. G.R. No.
149724, August 19, 2003
All executives and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the
heads of the various executive departments are
assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and
except in cases where the Chief Executive is
required by the Constitution or law to act in
person or the exigencies of the situation demand
that he act personally, the multifarious executive
and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business are,
unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.
Local government units
Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3,

2002
The power of the President over LGUs is only of
general supervision. Thus, he can only interfere in
the affairs and activities of a LGU if he finds that
the latter acted contrary to law. The President or
any of his alter egos cannot interfere in local
affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts within
the parameters of the law and the Constitution.
Any directive, therefore, by the President or any of
his alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-
conforming judgment on local affairs of a LGU is a
patent nullity, because it violates the principle of
local autonomy, as well as the doctrine of
separation of powers of the executive and the
legislative departments in governing municipal
corporations.
Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000)
AO 372 issued by Pres. Ramos required LGUs to
reduce their expenditures by 25% for their
authorized regular appropriations of non-
personal services.
AO 43 amending AO 372 was issued by President
Estrada reducing to 5% the amount of the internal
revenues allotment (IRA) to be withheld from the
LGUs.
Held:
AO 372 which directed the LGUs to reduce
expenditures, as being part of the President’s
supervision over local government. Supervision is
meant to oversee, while control meant to power to
alter what a subordinate has done and substitute
one’s judgment. The Chief Executive wields no
more authority than that of checking whether
local government were performing their duties as
provided by Constitution and statutes. But LGUs
continue to be agents of the national government.
BUT Section 4, which withheld 5% of the IRA from
LGUs was struck down for being unconstitutional.
It is a basic feature of local government autonomy
that their share of the IRA should be automatically
released.
4. Military powers
Scope of the President’s Military Powers
1. Command of the Armed Forces

2. Calling-out powers
3. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
4. Power to place the country or any part
thereof under martial law
Commander-in-Chief Clause
Sec. 18, Art. VII - “The President shall be the

Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
In cases of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he 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. xxx”
The Commander- in-Chief clause vests on the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, absolute
authority over the persons and actions of the
members of the armed forces. (Gudani v. Senga,
G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006)
Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15,

2006
By making the President the Commander-in-
Chief of all the armed forces, the principle
announced in Art. II, Sec. III is bolstered. Thus,
the Constitution lessens the danger of a military
take-over of the government in violation of its
republican nature. The President as
Commander-in-Chief can prevent the Army
General from appearing in a legislative
investigation and, if disobeyed, can subject him
to court martial.
Calling-out powers
President may call out such armed forces to

prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
or rebellion.
David v. Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3,

2006
Under the calling-out power, the President may

summon the armed forces to aid her in
suppressing lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion; this involves ordinary police action.
Difference with Declaration of State of

Emergency
The declaration of a state of emergency is

merely a description of a situation which
authorizes her to call out the Armed Forces to
help the police maintain law and order. It gives
no new power to her, nor to the police.
Certainly, it does not authorize warrantless
arrests or control of media. (David v. Ermita,
G.R. No. 171409, May 3, 2006)
No need to declare state of rebellion
The Constitution does not require the President

to declare a state of rebellion to exercise her
calling out power. Sec. 18, Art. VII grants the
President, as Commander-in-Chief a “sequence”
of “graduated powers.”
Be that as it may, the Court said that, in calling

out the armed forces, a declaration of a state of
rebellion is an “utter superfluity”. At most, it
only gives notice to the nation that such a state
exists and that the armed forces may be called
to prevent or suppress it. “The Court finds that
such a declaration is devoid of any legal
significance. For all legal intents, the declaration
is deemed not written.” Sanlakas v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004
Limitation on the calling-out power
But every act that goes beyond the President’s

calling-out power is considered illegal or ultra
vires. For this reason, a President must be
careful in the exercise of her powers. She cannot
invoke a greater power when she wishes to act
under a lesser power.
David v. Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3,
2006
Violation of separation of powers - PP 1017 is
unconstitutional insofar as it grants the
President the authority to promulgate “decrees”,
because legislative power is peculiarly within
the province of Congress. Likewise, the inclusion
in PP 1017 of Sec. 17, Art. XII of the Constitution
is an encroachment on the legislature’s
emergency powers. Sec. 17, Art. XII, must be
understood as an aspect of the emergency
powers clause, and thus, requires a delegation
from Congress.
Violation of due process - In relation to the
validity of the declaration of a state of national
emergency, the SC ruled that as there is no law
defining “acts of terrorism,” it is President
Arroyo alone, under General Order No. 5 who
has the discretion to determine what acts
constitute terrorism, without restrictions. Thus,
the due process clause has been violated and
that portion of General Order No. 5 is
unconstitutional.
Does not diminish constitutionally protected
rights
However, a mere declaration of a state of
rebellion cannot diminish or violate
constitutionally protected rights. There is also
no basis for the apprehensions that, because of
the declaration, military and police authorities
may resort to warrantless arrests. As held in
Lacson v. Perez, supra., the authorities may only
resort to warrantless arrests of persons
suspected of rebellion as provided under Sec. 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Sanlakas v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085,
February 3, 2004
Solely vested in the wisdom of the President

When the President calls out the armed forces
to suppress lawless violence, rebellion or
invasion, he necessarily exercises a
discretionary power solely vested in his
wisdom. The Court cannot overrule the
President’s discretion or substitute its own.
The only criterion is that “whenever it becomes
necessary”, the President may call out the
armed forces. In the exercise of the power, on-
the-spot decisions may be necessary in
emergency situations to avert great loss of
human lives and mass destruction of property.
Indeed, the decision to call out the armed
forces must be done swiftly and decisively if it
were to have any effect at all. Integrated Bar
of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
August 15, 2000
Supreme Court as a trier of fact

The President has discretionary authority to
declare a “state of rebellion”. The Court may
only look into the sufficiency of the factual basis
for the exercise of the power. Lacson v. Perez,
G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001

Suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
1. Grounds: Invasion or rebellion, when public
safety requires.
Lansang v. Garcia (1971)
Bombing during 1971 Liberal Party caucus.
Pres. Marcos issued PP 889 which suspended
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Marcos urged that there is a need to curtail
the growth of Maoist groups. Lansang
questioned the validity of the suspension of
the privilege of the writ averring that the
suspension does not meet the constitutional
requisites
Held :
Public safety requires the suspension.
Here, the existence of the New People's Army
is proof of rebellion regardless of how small it
is. The absence of any other incident after the
bombing is not proof of lack of rebellion.
2. Duration: Not to exceed sixty days, following
which it shall be lifted, unless extended by
Congress.
3. Duty of President to report action to
Congress: within 48 hours, personally or in
writing.
4. Congress may revoke [or extend on request of
the President] the effectivity of proclamation
by a majority vote of all its members, voting
jointly.
5. The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing [Sec.
18, Art. VII].
6. The suspension of the privilege of the writ
does not impair the right to bail [Sec. 13, Art.
III].
7. The suspension applies only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
8. During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days,
otherwise he shall be released.
NOTE: A “writ of habeas corpus” is an order
from the court commanding a detaining
officer to inform the court if he has the person
in custody, and what is his basis in detaining
that person. The “privilege of the writ” is that
portion of the writ requiring the detaining
officer to show cause why he should not be
tested. What is permitted to be suspended by
the President is not the writ itself but its
privilege.
Non-impairment of the right to bail
The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Limitations on the suspension of the
privilege of writ of habeas corpus
1. Applies only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion; and
2. Anyone arrested or detained during
suspension must be charged within 3 days.
Otherwise, he should be released.
Martial Law
“A state of martial law does not suspend the
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function,
nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ” [Sec. 18, Art. VII].
The constitutional limitations for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ are
likewise imposed on the proclamation of martial
law. (Nachura)
Guidelines in the declaration of martial law

1. There must be an invasion or rebellion, and
Public safety requires the proclamation of
martial law all over the Philippines or any
part thereof.
2. Duration: Not more than 60 days following
which it shall be automatically lifted unless
extended by Congress.
3. Duty of the President to report to Congress:
within 48 hours personally or in writing.
4. Authority of Congress to revoke or extend the
effectivity of proclamation: by majority vote of
all of its members voting jointly.
NOTE: Once revoked by Congress, the President

cannot set aside the revocation.
Limitations on the declaration of martial law
1. It does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution;
2. It does not supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies;
3. It does not authorize conferment of
jurisdiction over civilians where civil courts
are able to function;
NOTE: Civilians cannot be tried by military
courts if the civil courts are open and
functioning (Open Court Doctrine). (Olaguer v.
Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54558,
May 22, 1987)
4. It does not automatically suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus. (Sec. 18 (2), Art.
VII)
NOTE: When martial law is declared, no new
powers are given to the President; no extension of
arbitrary authority is recognized; no civil rights of
individuals are suspended. The relation of the
citizens to their State is unchanged.
Ways to lift the proclamation of martial law
1. Lifting by the President himself
2. Revocation by Congress
3. Nullification by the SC
Note: The Supreme Court cannot rule upon the
correctness of the President’s actions but only
upon its arbitrariness.
4. By operation of law after 60 days (Sec. 18, Art.
VII)
Martial law is a joint power of the President
and Congress
The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or affirm
the President’s proclamation or suspension, allow
their limited effectivity to lapse, or extend the
same if Congress deems warranted. It is evident
that under the 1987 Constitution the President
and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the
power to proclaim martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They
exercise the power, not only sequentially, but in a
sense jointly since, after the President has
initiated the proclamation or the suspension, only
the Congress can maintain the same based on its
own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a
power that the President does not have. (Fortun
v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20,
2012)
Supreme Court’s power to review factual bases
Although the Constitution reserves to the
Supreme Court the power to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that
the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own
review powers, which is automatic rather than
initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its
express duty to defend the Constitution through
such review should the Supreme Court step in as
its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the
President’s proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a
political question in the hands of Congress before
it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the
Court. (Fortun v. PGMA, March 20, 2012)
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the
factual bases for the President’s exercise of the
above power, it would generally defer to her
judgment on the matter. It is clearly to the
President that the Constitution entrusts the
determination of the need for calling out the
armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless
violence. Unless it is shown that such
determination was attended by grave abuse of
discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
President’s judgment. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan, et
al. v. Hon. Ronaldo Puno, et al., G.R. No. 190259.
June 7, 2011
5. Pardoning power
Sec. 19, Art. VII: “Except in cases of

impeachment, or as otherwise provided in the
Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
final judgment. He shall also have the power to
grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the members of the Congress.
a) Nature and limitations
Nature
Discretionary: may not be controlled by the

legislature or reversed by the courts, unless there
is a constitutional violation.
Because pardon is an act of grace, no legal power
can compel the President to give it. Congress has
no authority to limit the effects of the President’s
pardon, or to exclude from its scope any class of
offenders. Courts may not inquire into the wisdom
or reasonableness of any pardon granted by the
President.
Noted: Cannot be granted in cases of
legislative contempt (as it would violate
separation of powers).
Personal and non-delegable: The power of
executive clemency is a non-delegable power and
must be exercised by the President personally.
Limitations
Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment. (Sec.
2, Art. XI)
1. Cannot be granted for violations of election
laws without favorable recommendations of
the COMELEC.
2. Can be granted only after convictions by final
judgment (except amnesty).
3. Cannot be granted in cases of civil or legislative
contempt.
4. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability.
5. Cannot restore public offices forfeited.
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a
convicted felon neither to his former public
office nor to his rights and privileges, which
were necessarily relinquished or forfeited
by reason of the conviction although such
pardon (absolute) undoubtedly restores his
eligibility to that office. (Monsanto v.
Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989)
b) Forms of executive clemency
1. Pardon. An act of grace which exempts the

individual on whom it is bestowed from the
punishment that the law inflicts for the
crime he has committed.
2. Commutation. Reduction or mitigation of the
penalty.
Commutation is a pardon in form but not
in substance, because it does not affect his
guilt; it merely reduces the penalty for
reasons of public interest rather than for
the sole benefit of the offender.
NOTE: SC can review the correctness of
the action of the President in granting
executive clemency by commuting the
penalty of dismissal to a dismissed clerk
of court. By doing so, the SC is not
deciding a political question. What it is
deciding is whether or not the President
has the power to commute the penalty of
the said clerk of court. As stated in Daza v.
Singson, G.R. No. 87721-30, December 21,
1989, it is within the scope of judicial
power to pass upon the validity of the
actions of the other departments of the
Government.
3. Reprieve. Postponement of a sentence or
stay of execution.
4. Parole. Release from imprisonment, but
without full restoration of liberty, as parolee
is still in the custody of the law although not
in confinement.
5. Amnesty. Act of grace, concurred in by the
legislature, usually extended to groups of
persons who committed political offenses,
which puts into oblivion the offense itself.
NOTE: The first 4 require conviction by final
judgment while amnesty does not.
Kinds of pardon
As to presence of condition:
a. Absolute pardon – One extended without any
conditions.
b. Conditional pardon – One under which the
convict is required to comply with certain
requirements.
As to effect:
a. Plenary pardon – Extinguishes all the penalties
imposed upon the offender, including
accessory disabilities partial pardon does not
extinguish all penalties.
b. Partial pardon – Does not extinguish all the
penalties.
Right to reject the pardon
Conditional Pardon – The offender has the right to
reject it since he may feel that the condition
imposed is more onerous than the penalty sought
to be remitted.
Absolute Pardon – The pardonee has no option at
all and must accept it whether he likes it or not.
NOTE: Commutation is also not subject to
acceptance by the offender.
Amnesty
The grant of general pardon to a class of political
offenders either after conviction or even before
the charges is filed. It is the form of executive
clemency which under the Constitution may be
granted by the President only with the
concurrence of the legislature.
Effects of the grant of amnesty
The total extinguishment of the criminal liability
and of the penalty and all its effects. Amnesty
reaches back to the past and erases whatever
shade of guilt there was. In the eyes of the law, a
person granted amnesty is considered a new-born
child.
Limitations:
1. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment
[Sec. 19, Art. VII].
2. Cannot be granted in cases of violation of
election laws without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission on
Elections [Sec. 5, Art. IX-C].
Distinguished from Pardon
Amnesty Pardon
1. Offenses Political offenses Infraction of peace
2. Benefit Class of persons Individual
3. Acceptance Not needed Necessary
4. Congress Required Not required
concurrence
5. Judicial Applies Not applied.
notice Must be pleaded
6. Effect Looks backward Looks forward and
and puts into relieves the pardonee
oblivion the of the consequences
offense itself itself
6. Diplomatic power
Sec. 21, Art. VII: “No treaty or international

agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members
of the Senate. ”

Foreign relations powers of the President
1. Negotiate treaties and other international
agreements.
2. Appoint ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls.
3. Receive ambassadors and other public
ministers accredited to the Philippines.
4. Contract and guarantee foreign loans on
behalf of RP. (Sec. 20, Art. VII)
5. Deport aliens:
6. Decide that a diplomatic officer who has
become persona non grata be recalled.
7. Recognize governments and withdraw
recognition.
Senate concurrence
Treaty or international agreement
requires the concurrence of the Senate
(Sec. 21, Art. VII) which may opt to do the
following:
1. Approve with 2/3 majority;
b. Disapprove outright; or
c. Approve conditionally, with suggested
amendments which if re-negotiated and
the Senate’s suggestions are incorporated,
the treaty will go into effect without need
of further Senate approval.
But Executive Agreements do not require
Senate concurrence
Treaties distinguished from Executive
Agreements
a. Treaty - international agreements which
involve political issues or changes of
national policy and those involving
international arrangements of a permanent
character take the form of a treaty;
Executive agreement - international
agreements involving adjustment of details
carrying out well established national
policies and traditions and involving
arrangements of a more or less temporary
nature. Commissioner of Customs v.
Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351
Bayan v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
138570, October 10, 2000
The Philippine government had complied with
the Constitution in that the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) was concurred in by the
Philippine Senate, thus complying with Sec.-
21, Art. VII.
The Republic of the Philippines cannot require
the United States to submit the agreement to
the US Senate for concurrence, for that would
be giving a strict construction to the phrase,
“recognized as a treaty”. Moreover, it is
inconsequential whether the US treats the
VFA as merely an executive agreement
because, under international law, an executive
agreement is just as binding as a treaty.
Deportation of aliens
This power is vested in the President by
virtue of his office, subject only to restrictions
as may be provided by legislation as regards
to the grounds for deportation. (Sec. 69,
Revised Administrative Code)
In the absence of any legislative restriction to
authority, the President may still exercise this
power.
The power to deport aliens is limited by the
requirements of due process, which entitles
the alien to a full and fair hearing.
An alien has the right to apply for bail
provided certain standard for the grant is
necessarily met. Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,
G.R.No. 153675, April 19, 2007
NOTE: The adjudication of facts upon which
the deportation is predicated devolved on the
President whose decision is final and
executory. (Tan Tong v. Deportation Board,
G.R. No. L-7680, April 30, 1955)
7. Powers relative to appropriation measures
Budgetary Power. Sec. 22, Art. VII: “The President

shall submit to Congress within 30 days from the
opening of every regular session, as the basis of the
general appropriations act, a budget of
expenditures and sources of financing, including
receipts from existing and proposed revenue
measures. ”
Note: President to submit to Congress within 30

days from opening of every regular session, GA
bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of
financing.
Congress cannot increase the appropriations

recommended.
8. Delegated powers
Emergency Powers (Sec. 23[2], Art. VI) – Congress may

by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry our a
declared national policy. Unless sooner withdraws by
resolution of Congress, such powers shall cease upon
the next adjournment.
Tariff Powers (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI) - Congress may by

law, authorize the President to fix within specified
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharage dues, and other duties or imposts
9. Veto powers
Sec. 27, Art. VI

Bill passed by congress submitted to President for
approval.
President may approve or veto. supra
Other Powers:
Call Congress to special Session (Sec. 5, Art. VI)

Consent deputization of govt. personnel by Comelec
(Sec. 2, Art. IX-C)
Discipline such deputies
General supervision over local governments and

autonomous regions (Art. X)
C. Rules on Succession
Beginning of the term:
a) Death or permanent disability – VP-elect shall be Pres

b) Fails to qualify – VP elect shall act until Pres-elect
qualifies
c) Pres shall not have been chosen and qualified – VP
elect shall act until Pres is chosen and qualified
d) No Pres and VP chosen nor qualified or both died or
permanent disability – Senate Pres or in his inability,
the House Speaker shall act as President until Pres and
VP chosen and qualified.

Congress shall provide by law manner I which one who
is to act as President shall be selected until a Presidnet
or VP shall have qualified.
During term:
a) Death, Permanent disability, Removal, Resignation of

Pres - VP to become president
b) DPRR – Pres and VP – SP or in case of his inability, HS

shall act as Pres until Pres or VP shall be elected and
qualified.
c) Temporary Disability – Pres transmits to SP and HS

written declaration that he/she is unable to discharge
function – VP to act as Pres. until written declaration to
the contrary
Majority of Members of Cabinet transmits written

declaration that Pres. is unable to discharge – VP shall
immediately assume powers.
If Pres. transmits to SP and HS written declaration that

no inability exists, he shall reassume.
Should majority of Cabinet transmits within 5 days,

Congress to decide issue. Congress to convene if not in
session within 48 hours. 2/3 votes of both Houses
voting separately, VP shall act as President.
Duty of Congress in case of vacancy:
10 o’clock in the morning of the 3rd day after vacancy

occurs, Congress shall convene without need of call.
Within 7 days, enact a law calling for special election –
not earlier than 45 nor later than 60 days from time of
such call.
No more if vacancy occurs within 18 months before the

date of next presidential election.


Module 4 Executive Dept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Module 4 Executive Dept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 Executive Dept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 - Executive Department

Executive Power – the power to enforce and

Where vested - vested in the president of the

Qualifications (sec. 2):

Vice president (sec. 3)

President – no reelection (sec. 4)

But: No person who has succeeded as

A. Privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications

Privileges of the President:

3. Presidential or Executive immunity

Coverage: The President is immune from suit during

1. Executive and administrative powers in

The President shall have control of all executive

COPYRIGHT BY ERNESTO C. SALAO

2. Temporary (or acting) appointment – without

Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978,

4. Ad interim – made while congress is not in session,

Note: Ad interim – permanent appointment

Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,

STEPS IN APPOINTING PROCESS

1. Nomination by the President

Composed of the President of the Senate as ex

Appointments subject to CA confirmation (Sec.

1. Heads of the executive departments

2. Ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls

3. Officers of the armed forces (colonel or naval

Note: Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) is no

4. Other officers whose appointment is vested by

COPYRIGHT BY ERNESTO C. SALAO

1. He shall also appoint all other officers whose

Note: Congress may vest appointing power to

Other limitations on the power of appointment

1. President cannot appoint spouse and

2. Appointment by an Acting President – remain

Ban on midnight appointment does not

De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March

Sec. 9 (Art. VIII) states that the appointment

Members of the cabinet – may be removed anytime.

But: President cannot remove officials who are

Emilio Gonzales III v. Ochoa, G. R. No.

3. Power of control and supervision

Control - The power of an officer to alter or modify

b) Executive departments and offices

Doctrine of qualified political agency

The acts of the secretaries of the Executive

Delegation of the power to reorganize to

Local government units

Dadole v. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3,

Scope of the President’s Military Powers

1. Command of the Armed Forces

Sec. 18, Art. VII - “The President shall be the

Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15,

President may call out such armed forces to

David v. Ermita, G.R. No. 171409, May 3,

Under the calling-out power, the President may

Difference with Declaration of State of

The declaration of a state of emergency is

No need to declare state of rebellion