EXECUTIVE

Sec. 1:

Marcos vs Manglapus - The President has “residual powers.” The President is more than the sum
of specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. - What is not part of the legislative and
judicial departments is deemed part of the executive. - The 1987 Constitution provided for a
limitation of specific powers of the President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-
chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.

Soliven vs Makasiar - The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties free from any hindrance or distraction considering that being the Chief
Executive demands undivided attention. - The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the
office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office. There is nothing which prohibits the
President to waive this privilege.

Estrada vs Desierto - A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is
only during the tenure) - Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or
from wrongdoing. (Public office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials
are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the
same footing as any other trespasser.)

Sec. 16:

Sarmiento vs Mison - 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint: (a) heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other whose appointments are vested in him
in this Constitution (b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law (c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President
alone

Luego vs Civil Service Commission - CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment

because of its belief that another person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the appointing authority. - The permanent appointment made by the
appointing authority may not be reversed by CSC and call it temporary.

Pobre vs Mendieta - The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation
Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation of law (or by
succession) because it will deprive the President of the power to appoint the Chairman.

Sec. 17

Drilon vs Lim - Distinction between power and control: An officer in control lays down the rules
in the doing of an act. if they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or
re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it by himself. Supervision does not cover
such authority. The supervisor merely sees to it that rules are followed, but he himself does not
lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are
not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules.
He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules are followed. (Note)
Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a
subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of the
former [Mondano vs Silvosa]

Villena vs Secretary of the Interior - Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle)
-acts of the Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed and promulgated in the
regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive - Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested
with the authority to order the investigation of the charges against the petitioner and to appoint a
special investigator for that purpose.

Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano - Department heads are President's “men of confidence.”
His is the power to appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally,
he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or
reverse the action taken by his department secretaries. - Case at bar: The President, through his
Executive Secretary, may undo an act of the Director of Lands

Sec. 19:

People vs Salle, Jr. - Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of
conviction is still pending appeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted. Before an
appellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.

Garcia vs COA - President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his office
pursuant to an administrative case (but where the latter has been acquitted in a criminal case
based on the same facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement
and backwages.

Sabello vs DECS - Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties and
disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon may restore a person's
eligibility to public office, it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He should apply for
reappointment to said office.

Llamas vs Orbos - In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not
distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.

Sec. 21:

Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961) - The concurrence of the House of
Congress is required by our fundamental law in the making of treaties which are however
distinct and different from executive agreements which may be validly entered without such
concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec. - The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence
of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or
concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to
submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it.
This discretion to ratify lies within the President's competence alone.

4 steps in treaty-making process: (a) negotiation (b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of
authenticating the instrument and a symbol of good faith) (c) ratification (formal act by which a
statute confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty) (d) exchange of instruments of ratification