Powers of the President

1. Commander-in-Chief Powers (Sec. 18)

a. Calling out Powers (to call out or mobilize the AFP – referring to all personnel of
Government who bear arms including Brgy. Tanods, PNP etc.)
b. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (do not confuse writ of habeas
corpus vs. the privilege of the writ. The former refers to the document and the latter
refers to the rights of the individual). This only happens during the state of rebellion,
insurgency. This means we can be arrested without a lawful warrant.
(Note: What is the difference of Writ of Habeas Corpus vs. Writ of Amparo – Writ of
Amparo does not stop from the order of the court to produce the body of the unlawful
warrant, it goes beyond that. It can authorize the petitioner to go to the camp itself to
search for the arrested individual. The court can also give protection to the petitioner.
The petitioner can also photocopy important documents in relation to the individual. It
can authorize to put the witness under the witness protection program). What are the
benefits of getting the Writ of Amparo from the Court?
c. Declaration of Martial Law – must secure the consent of Congress

Distinguish the power from the residual powers (Sec. 17, Art.7), any and all powers that is
necessary to protect the welfare of the people (i.e. Marcos vs. Manglapuz)

Section 23, Declaration of a State of National Emergency – it is congress who must declare a
state of State of National Emergency and Congress must delegate the power to the president re
the State of National Emergency

SANLAKAS v. SECRETARY –Oakwood Mutiny (relate to Lacson v. Perez) – declaring state of

rebellion which has no legal consequence.

Olaguer vs. MC – private individual not military; case should be held in regular court and not military
court

Navales v. Abaya – should be held in the military court

Lansang vs. Garcia, - suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus; meeting of Liberal Party was
bombed; question if this is political or justiciable issue? Issue held it is justiciable issue.

David vs. Arroyo – declaration of GMA of National Emergency, 20 th anniversary of EDSA People Power;
she closed down utilities and newspaper offices; Sec. 23 Par 2 of the Constitution. SC: President has no
power to declare state of national emergency; it is only the congress who can declare but they can
delegate certain powers.

Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans

Constantino vs. Cuisia

Odious Debts – borrowed money from IMF and World Bank c/o Marcos but not channeled to the benefit
of Filipino People; thus Cory must renounced these debts. Cory disagreed because we might be
blacklisted. SC said President knows what she is doing.

Foreign Affairs

People’s Movement for Press Freedom, (VFA) – senate declared we will not be allowing military bases;
US opened Balikatan Forces Agreement; Sec. 18 States that military bases will not be allowed in PH,
otherwise, it must be covered by treaty agreement and ratified by both agreements in both countries
and not just mere Presidential Agreement. Petitioners want to know the provisions of VFA; SC said that
the agreement is covered by the Executive Privilege of the President not to disclose any part of the
agreement since this will jeopardize the ongoing agreement.

This was followed by:

EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) – pinayagan nine sites sa Philippines for the US
Military installation complete with airports and structures.

Comm. Of Customs vs. Eastern Sea – SC differentiated treaties vs. executive agreement. Treaty – main
framework of the agreement; executive agreement provides the details of the main framework

Go Tek vs. Deportation Board, - undesirable alien kicked out of Marcos; SC said President has full
discretion in this regard; he can expel even if case still pending with the deportation board.

Legislative Power of the President

 Address the congress thru the SONA done every 4 th of May

 Veto Powers
 Emergency Powers

Beltran vs. Macasiar - Immunity from suit; you cannot file suit to President while in power; Beltran after
the coup d etat wrote an article and said she was scared; Cory filed suit for libel against Beltran; Lawyer
of Beltran reasoned that since President is immune from suit, she also cannot file suit since this will
hinder her day to day operations; SC said the President has the option to waive immunity.

Gloria vs. CA – Gloria as Head or Secretary of Education had rigoddon and a suit was filed against her
and she invoked that she is immune just like the President; SC held this is incorrect, he cannot invoke
immunity from suit.

QUALIFICATIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT (5) , PROHIBITIONS, SALARIES

JUDICIAL POWER ART 8 – vested in the courts not only SC

SC – 15 justices ; can be in division in 3, 5 or 7 (in division of 3, should be unanimous, if not then they will
have to be joined by 2 from others)

Mode of Seating

MMDA v. Jancom – MMDA lost in the division; they cannot accept the decision and they would have to
appeal the decision of the division to the en banc; SC said there is no such appeal from the division to
the en banc; the division and en banc are the same which is the SC.

People v. Gacott – Judge is Suspended; suspended judge would like to come from the en banc and not
just the division; SC held that suspension is just in the division and not necessarily en banc; but if
dismissal then en banc can be convened.

APPOINTMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS – c/o Judicial and Bar and Council - monitor qualifications and
will give at least 5 names to the President for appointment

No non-work for judges – dapat di bigyan ng ibang trabaho dapat judge lang talaga

Meralco vs. Pasay Trans. Co., - SC held that judge cannot be appointed to the Board of Arbrirators; you
can do no other work except that of a judge

Garcia vs. Macaraig – Macaraig was a judge of Laguna and he was appointed as DOJ Secretary; SC held
judge cannot do other thing such as being an undersecretary of DOJ

SALARIES

Nitafan vs. Comm. Of Internal Revenue – complaining that Judge’s salary cannot be imposed with the
tax holding that court is independent; SC held that Income of the Judges shall be subject to an income
tax

TENURE – 70 years under Art. 8 except improper behavior

FISCAL AUTONOMY – independence as in the case of Nitfan

In Re Gonzales – Gonzales filed disbarment case the Chief of Justice; SC said that not possible since may
only be removed through impeachment

SANTIAGO v. BAUTISTA v. FELIPE v. LEUERIO

Decision must come from court of law and not from the decision of other judges in other board

Deliberations – there must be certification from Chief of Justice that the decision was deliberated
upon but the decision of collegial body. This certification must be included in the documentation if not
present decision is not valid
Prudential Bank v. Castro – SC held certification only applies to court decision and not to decision of
administrative bodies

Consing v. CA – Absence of Certification does not invalidate decision;

VOTING

CRUZ v. DENR
- About indigenous people; questioned constitutionality; in the voting, result is always 7 (tie
three times), it was concluded that the IPRA law (Civil Case) is constitutional

 In case of Death Penalty, if tie and cannot decide, result is dismissal

Valladolid vs. Inciong, 121 SCRA

– the conclusion of the SC, shall be reached for Consultation before assigning for writing of the opinion.
NLRC decision; issue; whether Labor Arbiter needs to certify before making a decision; SC said that
certification is made that consultation is made after decision because labor arbiter is not a court
decision.

Nunal V. COA
- Resolution of COA is not considered a court decision; thus it is also not required for CJ to certify
that decision is made after consultation

People vs. Bugarin

- Required certification before consultation

Hernandez vs. CA
Court can adopt narration of parties; court can come up with narration of facts; court will have its
own findings of facts

Yao vs. CA
- Decision must state clearly its cases

Dizon vs. Judge Lopez

- Sin perjuicio judgment (only dispositive is mentioned) is not valid.

Asiavest
- Foreign judgment is valid as long as they followed the rules of due process in their own
jurisdiction

Tichangco v. Enriquez
- No motion for reconsideration shall be denied without discussion of the factual basis for the
denial (Sec. 14, Par. 2)
- What is only stated is “No reversible error” SC said it is valid,

Martinez v. CA
 - Dismissal contains following sentence: Petitioner raised nothing new in this petition
- SC said it is valid even there is no discussion of factual antecedents

In Re: Delays in Sandiganbayan

Periods for deciding cases

- Sec. 15 all cases must be decided within 24 months by SC from the receipt there of; 12 months
for CA; 3 months for Lower Court

In Re: Demetria

Justice Demetria was dismissed since he was getting involved in the case of drug queen Yu
Yuk Lai

People v. Pilotin (change of venue)

- Bingbong Crisologo, sinunog ang dalawang barangay kung san natalo ang tatay nya, nagpalipat
sa QC or Baguio kasi kung sa Ilocos sya ililitis

Mondiguing v. Abad- Ifugao to Baguio

People v. Sola – witnesses transferred to Bacolod to protect the witnesses

Zaldivar v. Gonzales -Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus

In Re Cunanan – congress released a law giving a determination on the rating to the admission
to the bar only the SC

Aguirre v. Rana – appeared on court after passing the Bar even without signing the Roll of
Attorney and Oath Taking

In Re: Edillon – non-payment of IBP dues is a ground for disbarment.

10% of your time as lawyer should be devoted to indigents thru free legal service; report on the
judiciary

Lower Courts – determined by Congress and statute for adding and deducting qualifications of
judges; must be a citizen and a member of the Philippine Bar

In Re: IBP Elections Bar Matter –

De La Llana: Overtaken by section 2 article 8; before congress is prohibited on abolishing by

statute of the judiciary