OUTLINE REVIEWER IN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES SOVEREIGN POWER

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. (Sec. 1, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

▪ The people are possessors of sovereign power, and the source of all government authority.
▪ This does not mean, however, that the new constitution allows direct or pure democracy
where the people directly manage their affairs.
▪ The people should not exercise the powers of government directly. They can do it only
through the medium of duly elected and appointed public officials.

Manifestations of Republicanism:

1. Ours is a government of laws and not of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639,
March 25, 1919)
2. Rule of majority;
3. Accountability of public officials;
4. Bill of rights;
5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws; and
6. Separation of powers.

Rule of Law

Ours is a government of laws and not of men. It is meant that no man in this country is so high
that he is above the law, that no officer of the law may set the law at defiance with impunity, and
that all officers of the government are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. (Villavicencio
vs. Lukban, G.R. No. L-14639, March 25, 1919)

Rule of the Majority

In elections, majority is plurality. All that a candidate has to get is the highest number of votes in
order to be declared the winner without necessarily getting more than 50% of the votes cast.
Consequently, the will of the majority may not be thwarted directly or indirectly.

Kinds of Majority

SIMPLE MAJORITY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY QUALIFIED MAJORITY

50% plus one of all those 50% plus one of all the That otherwise provided in
present. members of the body the Constitution or law (e.g.
2/3 of the Senate to concur
with a treaty).

ADHERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)

Renunciation of War

The kind of war renounced is the war of aggression normally for territorial aggrandizement. A
war, however, where the country has to defend its honor and integrity is allowed. The United
Nations allows the use of arms in cases of individual and collective self-defense.

ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION – the generally accepted principles of international law

become part of the law of the land without need of a law to be passed by Congress. As to what
is a “generally accepted principle” will have to be ascertained by the courts of justice.

 The doctrine of incorporation dictates that the rule of international law is given equal standing
with, and are not superior to national legislative enactment. Accordingly, the principle of lex
posterior derogate priori takes effect. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of
the land, such as the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in
conflict with the Constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997)

DOCTRINE OF AUTO-LIMITATION – the Philippines cannot enact or adapt laws which will
circumvent or contravene international laws.

Conflict between International and Municipal law: If there is conflict between Philippine law
and international law, efforts must be made to harmonize the conflicting provisions. If the conflict
is irreconcilable, and a choice has to be made between the two, Philippine Law must be upheld
as police power cannot be bargained away by the medium of a treaty . (Ichong vs Hernandez, G.R.
No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)

CIVILIAN SUPREMACY

Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) is the protector of the people of the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State

 The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause
nor does it infringe the civilian character of the police force. The calling of the Marines in this
case constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. The
participation of the Marines in the conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately
circumscribed. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones in charge of the
visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. (Integrated Bar of the
Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000)

Rationale: The provision was primarily intended for the people to develop confidence in running
the affairs of the government. Likewise, it was meant to allay fears of military takeover of the
civilian government. The military is the sword of the Republic. It is an instrument for the
preservation of its own existence and the enforcement of authority. It should not be used in any
form or manner that may coerce the consent of the people. Thus, the military must be under the
control at all times by the elected representatives of the people. (Black, Constitutional Law, 3rd
edition, pp.115-116)
The following provisions also ensure supremacy of the civilian rule over the military:

1. The installation of the President, the highest civilian authority, as the commander-in-chief of
all the armed forces of the Philippines. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution);
2. The requirement that members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution
which is the fundamental law of the civil government. (Sec. 5[1], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
3. The requirement that members of the AFP shall have respect for people’s rights in the
performance of their duty. (Sec. 5[2], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
4. Professionalism in the armed forces. (Sec. 5[3], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
5. Insulation of the AFP from partisan politics. (Sec. 5[3], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
6. Prohibition against the appointment of an AFP member in the active service to a civilian
position. (Sec. 5[4], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
7. Compulsory retirement of officers without extension of service. (Sec. 5[5], Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution);
8. Requirement of proportional recruitment from all provinces and cities, so as to avoid any
regional clique from forming within the AFP. (Sec. 5[6], Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution);
9. A 3-year limitation on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff, which although extendible in case
of emergency by the President, depends on Congressional declaration of emergency.
10. The establishment of a police force that is not only civilian in character but also under the
local executives. (Sec. 6, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

GOVERNMENT AS PROTECTOR AND PEOPLE AS DEFENDERS OF THE STATE

The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call
upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service. (Sec. 4, Art. II,
1987 Constitution)

The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the
blessings of democracy. (Sec. 5, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be composed of a citizen armed force which shall
undergo military training and serve, as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force
necessary for the security of the State. (Sec. 4, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

Compulsory military or civil service; protection of people and state

▪ The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The government may
call upon the people to defend that State, in the fulfillment thereof; all citizens may be
required, under the conditions provided by law, to render personal military or civil service.
▪ Section 4, Article II does not contemplate money or property or their equivalent, but personal
service.
▪ Substitutionary service is not allowed because of the equal protection clause.

A citizen cannot invoke exemption from rendering military and civil service on the ground of
religion as this provision is based on the inherent right of every state to existence and self-
preservation.
To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would make this duty of the
Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who would volunteer to enlist therein.
(People vs Lagman, G.R. No. L-45892, July 13, 1938)

▪ The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory military service, does not
go against Sec. 2, Art. II, of the 1987 Constitution, but is, on the contrary, in faithful
compliance therewith.

Rule of Military Service for Resident Aliens

Aliens permanently residing in the Philippines may be required to render military service
because of the following reasons:

Resident aliens owe temporary allegiance to the Philippines for their protection. (Carlisle vs.
United States, 83 U.S. 147, [1872])

▪ The Philippines exercises sovereignty over all persons, whether citizens or aliens residing in
the country.
▪ It is an obligation inherent in his membership in the political community and is the price he
has to pay for the protection of the laws and the benefits received from the state of which he
is a part.

The constitution provides that the government may call upon the people to defend the state. It
does not say “Filipino people” only. (Sec. 4, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

The separation of church and state shall be inviolable. (Sec. 6, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political rights. (Sec. 5, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The Commission on Elections shall register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalition. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. (Sec.
2[5], Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)

Under Benevolent Neutrality, the “wall of separation” is meant to protect the church from the
State. It believes that with respect to governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be
allowed, not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and
groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. (Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P‐02‐ 1651, June
22, 2006)

The Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State through the following:

1. Non-Establishment Clause – public funds cannot be spent for religious purposes (Sec. 5,
Art. III, 1987 Constitution);
2. Free Exercise Clause. (Sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution);
3. Religious Test Clause. (Section 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution);
4. Ineligibility of religious sects from being registered as a political party. (Sec. 61, B.P. Blg.
881)

Exceptions to Separation of Church and State:

▪ Tax exemption of lands and buildings used for religious purposes from real property taxes
(Sec. 28[3] Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
▪ Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian purposes does not apply when a priest or like
persons is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution or government orphanage
or leprosarium (Section 29 [2], Article VI, 1987 Constitution);
▪ Optional religious instruction for public elementary and high school students (Section 3 [3],
Article XIV, 1987 Constitution);
▪ Exceptions on Filipino ownership for schools however this does not apply when the
education institution is established by a religious group or a mission board (Section 4[2],
Article XIV, 1987 Constitution)

INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY

The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and
the right to self-determination. (Sec. 7, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

NUCLEAR-FREE PHILIPPINES

The Philippines, consistent with national interest, adopts and pursue a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons in its territory. (Sec. 8, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

Nuclear Weapons: The phrase “consistent with the national interest” seems to indicate that the
Constitution itself has mandated that nuclear weapons are absolutely prohibited in the country.
However, in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, the phrase “consistent with the
national interest” was understood to mean “subject to the national interest” signifying that the
issue of “whether or not to allow nuclear weapon” depends on Congress.

New Bases Agreement: Any new bases agreement must be contained in a treaty concurred in
by the Senate and when Congress so requires, ratified by the people in a national referendum.
It must also be recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state meaning that not only by its
president but also by its Senate must concur with the treaty to prevent it from refusing
appropriation therefore.

Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA): The Philippines entered into an agreement with the US for
joint military exercises, which although not a bases agreement, allows entry of American troops
and facilities in the country. The 1999 VFA was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government
and hence, sent to the Senate, which approved the same.

Justification of the legality of VFA: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops,
or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be
under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by
Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c)
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. The phrase “recognized as a treaty”
means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
 It is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive agreement
because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be
sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law,
the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty. (BAYAN vs. Executive Secretary Ronaldo,
GR No. 138570 and Companion Cases, October 10, 2000)
 With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the
exchange of notes between the Philippines and the United States of America, it now
becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to
be bound by the terms of the agreement. (BAYAN vs. Executive Secretary Ronaldo, GR No.
138570 and Companion Cases, October 10, 2000)
 A plain textual reading of Art. XIII, Sec. 25, inevitably leads to the conclusion that it applies
only to a proposed agreement between our government and a foreign government, whereby
military bases, troops, or facilities of such foreign government would be "allowed" or would
"gain entry" Philippine territory. It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to
the initial entry of the foreign military bases, troops or facilities. Once entry is authorized, the
subsequent acts are thereafter subject only to the limitations provided by the rest of the
Constitution and Philippine law, and not to the Section 25 requirement of validity through a
treaty. (Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016)

JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER

The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and animproved
quality of life for all. (Sec. 9, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. (Sec. 10, Art. II,
1987 Constitution)

SOCIAL JUSTICE – It is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principles of salus populi est suprema lex. (Calalang vs.
Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 02, 1940)

WELFARE STATE – The government shall actively involve itself in providing for measures that
will ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The state is held to be
responsible in coping with the social and economic problems by exercising the powers
necessary to promote the general welfare.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human
rights. (Sec. 11, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State
"guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the
1987Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective
if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat.
(Razon vs Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009)

Cases of Human Rights under the Commission on Human Rights

1. Protection of Rights of Political;

2. Treatment of Prisoners and Prevention of Tortures;
3. Fair and Public Trials;
4. Cases of Disappearances;
5. Salvagings and Hamletting; and
6. Other crimes committed against the religious (Simon vs. CHR, G.R. No. 100150 January 5,
1994)

The FAMILY AS BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of
the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the Government. (Sec. 12, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

Protection of the Unborn

The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.
There is a constitutional policy against abortion.

YOUTH

The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth
patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. (Sec. 13,
Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN

The State recognizes the role of women in nation building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men. (Sec. 14, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

This constitutional provision provides a more active application than the passive orientation of
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution does, which simply states that no person shall "be
denied the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection, within the context of Article III,
Section 1 only provides that any legal burden or benefit that is given to men must also be given
to women. It does not require the State to actively pursue affirmative ways and means to battle
the patriarchy-that complex of political, cultural, and economic factors that ensure women's
disempowerment.
Our country became a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). By enacting the Constitution and signing on the
CEDAW, the State has committed to ensure and to promote gender equality. (Racho vs Tanaka,
G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018)

The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions,
taking into account their maternal functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will
enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the nation.
(Sec. 14, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

PROMOTION OF HEALTH

The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them. (Sec. 15, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which
shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the
people at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the under privileged, sick,
elderly, disabled, women, and children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
paupers.(Sec. 11, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug regulatory system and
undertake appropriate health, manpower development, and research, responsive to the
country’s health needs and problems.” (Sec. 12, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall establish a special agency for disabled persons for their rehabilitation, self-
development, and self-reliance, and their integration into the mainstream of society. (Sec. 12,
Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

PROMOTION OF ECOLOGY

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. (Sec. 16, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

 The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is as important as any civil and political rights.
(Oposa vs. Factoran Jr., GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

PRIORITY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE & SPORTS

The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to
foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development. (Sec. 17, Article II, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and
shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. (Sec. 1, Art. XIV, 1987
Constitution)

The State shall establish and maintain a system of free public education in the elementary and
high school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to rear their children, elementary
education is compulsory for all children of school age. (Sec. 2[2], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution)
The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will
attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration
and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment. (Sec. 5[5], Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution)

Right to quality education: Students have the constitutional right not only to education, but
also to a quality education, up to the secondary level, for free. The school has the right to
impose reasonable academic and disciplinary standards, with the end in view of according the
right to education only on the basis of merit. (Sec. 2, R.A. 9155)

Academic Freedom

Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. (Sec. 5[2], Article XIV,
1987 Constitution)

▪ Institutional academic freedom includes the freedom of the teacher to investigate and discuss
the problems of his science and to express his conclusions, whether through publication, or
in the instruction of students, without interference, unless his methods are found to be
completely incompetent or contrary to professional ethics.

The right to discipline the student finds basis in the freedom "what to teach." Indeed, while it is
categorically stated under the Education Act of 1982 that students have aright "to freely choose
their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to
graduation," such right is subject to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid
down by the academic institution. (DLSU Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127980, December 19,
2007)

PROTECTION OF LABOR

The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers
and promote their welfare.” (Sec. 18, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized,
and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. (Sec. 3, Art. XIII,
1987 Constitution)

The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. (Sec. 8,
Art. III, 1987 Constitution)

The right of self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. (Sec. 2[5], Art. IX-
B, 1987 Constitution)

SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC ORDER

The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled
by Filipinos. (Sec. 19, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

REGALIAN DOCTRINE – all-natural resources of the country belong to the State, thus, one of
its primary goals is to conserve and develop its natural patrimony.
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)

 The classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the Executive Department

through the Office of the President. (Republic vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon, G.R. No. L-76265,
March 11, 1994)

DOCTRINE OF NATIVE TITLE – Ownership over native land is already vested on natives even
if they do not have formal titles (Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S. 449, [1909])

Policies on Conservation of the Natural Resource

▪ The enjoyment of natural resources shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to

companies they control.
▪ The use, development and exploitation of natural resources shall be under the control of the
State and as a rule, they cannot be alienated.
▪ The enjoyment, utilization and exploitation of natural resources shall be spread as widely as
possible among the people. (Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)

ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE ECONOMY

The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private
enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. (Sec. 20, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

COMPREHENSIVE LAND REFORM

The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. (Sec. 21, Art. II,
1987 Constitution)

Agrarian Reform

The State is mandated to uplift the plight of all sectors of the populace for their enjoyment of a
decent standard of living. The Constitution specifically provides for an agrarian reform program
where the farmer may acquire ownership of the landholdings so he may benefit fully from the
fruits of his labors. (Sec. 21, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The creation of a substantial agricultural surplus to fuel industrial labor will lay the basis for
genuine industrialization and modernization. The landowner will be guaranteed just
compensation and a reasonable retention limit. The rights of small agricultural landowners and
small homestead settlers shall be respected.

The law in force on the matter is R.A No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS OF INDIGENEOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the
framework of national unity and development. (Sec. 22, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and
programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to
ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. (Sec. 5, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to
preserve and develop their cultures, traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in
the formulation of national plans and policies. (Sec. 17, Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution)

The Congress may create a consultative body to advise the President on policies affecting
indigenous cultural communities, the majority of the members of which shall come from such
communities. (Sec. 12 Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ACT (R.A No.8371, October 29, 1997) – recognizes the
existence of indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as a distinct sector in
Philippine society. It grants these people the ownership and possession of their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands, and defines the extent of these lands and domains. The
ownership given is the indigenous concept of ownership under customary law which traces its
origin to native title.

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES or INDIGENOUS PEOPLES – a group of people or

homogeneous societies who have continuously lived as an organized community on
communally bounded and defined territory.

 An associative arrangement does not uphold national unity. While there may be a semblance
of unity because of the associative ties between the BJE and the national government, the
act of placing a portion of Philippine territory in a status which, in international practice, has
generally been a preparation for independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity.
(The Province of North Cotobato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on
Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008.)

INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATION

The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that

promote the welfare of the nation. (Sec. 23, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable the people to
pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests
and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. (Sec. 15, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all
levels social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall,
by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. (Sec. 16, Art. XIII,
1987 Constitution)

PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS – bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity

to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership, and structure. (Sec.
15, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATION-BUILDING

The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building. (Sec.
24, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and
the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation
and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with
policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press. (Sec. 10, Art. XVI, 1987
Constitution)

Mass Media and Advertising: The Constitution recognizes the essential role of communication
and information in nation building. In recognition of such, the ownership and management of
mass media are required to be in the hands of the Filipinos. Commercial advertising is now
defined as being vested with public interest, and can thus be owned and managed only by 70%
Filipino corporations. While monopolies in mass media may be regulated or prohibited,
combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition in information matters are absolutely
prohibited. (Sec. 11, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution)

AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. (Sec. 25, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT – a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be in
conformity with law; it performs dual functions: governmental and proprietary. (Sec. 15, Republic
Act No. 7160)

Rationale of Local Autonomy

▪ To relieve the local government from monolithic control of the national government.
▪ To make local governments more self-reliant so that they can cease to be mendicants of the
national government.
▪ To give them the widest participation and initiative in self-government.

EQUAL ACCESS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

The State shall guarantee equal access of opportunities for public service, and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law. (Sec. 26, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)

 The right to vote and be voted for shall not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual
concerned, whereas social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike,
and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be
elected to public office. (Maquera vs. Borra, G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965)

HONEST PUBLIC SERVICE

The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service, and take positive and
effective measures against graft and corruption. (Sec. 27, Art. II, 1987 Constitution)
FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of
full public disclosure of all its transaction involving public interest. (Sec. 28, Art. II, 1987
Constitution)

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, 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. (Sec. 7, Art. III,
1987 Constitution)

Transparency

The State provides for a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest. The provisions on transparency include those on foreign loans, the President’s health,
statement of assets and liabilities, and the right to information.

 The right covers three categories of information which are “matters of public concern,”
namely: (1) official records; (2) documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions
and decisions; and (3) government research data used in formulating policies. The right only
affords access to records, documents and papers, which means the opportunity to inspect
and copy them. The right to information, however, does not extend to matters recognized as
privileged information under the separation of powers. The right does not also apply to
information on military and diplomatic secrets, information affecting national security, and
information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution
of the accused, which courts have long recognized as confidential. The right may also be
subject to other limitations that Congress may impose by law. (Chavez vs. PEA & Amari,
G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002)

Constitutional provision on transparency in matters of public concern

The 1987 Constitution provides for a policy of transparency in matters of public interest:

1. Policy of full public disclosure of government transactions (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 28).
2. Right to information on matters of public concern (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7).
3. Access to the records and books of account of the Congress (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.
20).
4. Submission of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec.
17).
5. Access to information on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the government (1987
Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 21).

These provisions on public disclosures are intended to enhance the role of the citizenry in
governmental decision-making as well as in checking abuse in government. (Valmonte vs.
Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989)
SEPARATION OF POWERS

Purpose: To prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might
lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of the republican
institutions.

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the
provision on initiative and referendum. (Sec. 1, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. (Sec. 1, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

 Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers, the correctness of the decisions of the
Supreme Court as final arbiter of all justiciable disputes is conclusive upon all other
departments of the government; the Ombudsman has no power to review the decisions of
the Supreme Court by entertaining a complaint against the Justices of the Supreme Court for
knowingly rendering an unjust decision.” (In re: Laureta and Maravilla, 148 SCRA 382 [1987])
 The 3 co-equal part branches of government are each supreme and independent within the
limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with the performance of the duties of the
other. (Forbes vs. Chuoco, G.R. No. L- 6157, July 30, 1979)
 The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains
not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of
the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept
separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and
independent of each other.”(Angara vs. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936)

CHECKS AND BALANCE

Allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments, the net effect of which being that, in general, no
one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments.

 But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct
that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each
other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.” (Angara
vs. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936)
 Congressional oversight is not per se violative, but is integral, to separation of powers.
(AbakadaGuroPartylist vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
 A legislative veto, i.e. statutory provision (which may take the form of a congressional
oversight committee) that requires the President or an agency to submit the proposed
implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress for approval, is unconstitutional. It
encroaches on: (1) The executive - it allows Congress to take a direct role in the enforcement
of its laws; (2) The judiciary - administrative issuances enjoy a presumption of validity, and
only the courts may decide whether or not they conform to statutes or the Constitution.
(AbakadaGuroPartylist vs. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008)
 In the final analysis, the Court must strike down the Pork Barrel System as unconstitutional in
view of the inherent defects in the rules within which it operates. To recount, insofar as it has
allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in
vital areas of budget execution, the system has violated the principle of separation of powers;
insofar as it has conferred unto legislators the power of appropriation by giving them
personal, discretionary funds from which they are able to fund specific projects which they
themselves determine, it has similarly violated the principle of non-delegability of legislative
power; insofar as it has created a system of budgeting wherein items are not textualized into
the appropriations bill, it has flouted the prescribed procedure of presentment and, in the
process, denied the President the power to veto items. (Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, G.R.
Nos. 208566, 208493, 209251, November 19, 2013)
 Section 8(2) of RA No. 6770, providing that the President may remove a Deputy
Ombudsman, is 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. Section 8(2) of R.A. No. 6770 intruded
upon the constitutionally-granted independence of the Office of the Ombudsman. By so
doing, the law directly collided not only with the independence that the Constitution
guarantees to the Office of the Ombudsman, but inevitably with the principle of checks and
balances that the creation of an Ombudsman office seeks to revitalize. What is true for the
Ombudsman must equally and necessarily be true for her Deputies who act as agents of the
Ombudsman in the performance of their duties. The Ombudsman can hardly be expected to
place her complete trust in her subordinate officials who are not as independent as she is, if
only because they are subject to pressures and controls external to her Office. (Gonzales III
vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014)

DELEGATION OF POWERS

Rationale: Potestas delegate non potest delegare (what has been delegated cannot be further
delegated). It is based on the ethical principle that delegated power constitutes not only a right,
but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and
not through the intervening mind of another.

GENERAL RULE: Usually applied to legislative power since the legislative power of Congress
is already a delegated power given to them by the people (thru Article 1, Section VI of the
Constitution), Congress cannot pass laws delegating such power to some other department,
branch, or instrumentality of the government.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Subordinate legislation made by administrative agencies. – Administrative agencies have

the power to “fill-up the details” of a statute passed by Congress in the course of its
implementation.
2. Delegated legislative power to local governments – Local governments may be allowed to
legislate on purely local matters (Sec. 9, Art. IX)
3. Legislative power reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum (Sec.
1, Art. VI)
4. Emergency power delegated to the Executive during State of War or National Emergency
(Sec. 23[2], Art. VI)
5. Certain taxing powers of the President (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI)
Permissible delegation

1. By direct constitutional grant

a. Delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28[2], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
b. Delegation of emergency powers to the President (Sec. 23[2], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
c. Delegation to local government;
d. Rulemaking power of the Supreme Court (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution);and
e. Rulemaking power of Constitutional Commissions. (Sec. 6, Art. IX-A; Sec. 3, Art. IX-C;
Sec. 2[2], Art. IX-D, 1987 Constitution)

2. By legislative grant: Delegation of powers to administrative bodies (also called

Subordinate Legislation).

Tests for Valid Delegation (Pelaez vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L – 23825, December 24, 1965)

1. Completeness Test: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when
it reaches him except to enforce it.

 The “completeness test” means that the law sets forth the policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by the delegate (AbakadaGuro Party List vs. Ermita, G.R. No.
168056, October 18, 2005)

2. Sufficiency of Standard Test: A sufficient standard is intended to map out the

boundaries of the delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the
circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected; intended to prevent a total
transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate.

 The “sufficient standard test” means that the law lays down adequate guidelines or
limitations to map out the boundaries of the authority of the delegate and prevent the
delegate from running riot. The standard must specify the limits of the authority of the
delegate, announce the legislative policy and identify the condition under which it is to
be implemented (AbakadaGuro Party List vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, October 18, 2005)

CITIZENSHIP

CITIZENSHIP - It pertains to a membership in a political community, which is personal and

more or less permanent in character. It denotes possession within that particular political
community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority.
Reciprocally, it imposes the duty of allegiance tothe political community (Bernas, Commentary,
2009, p.629)

CITIZEN – one, who, as a member of the body politic of state, owes allegiance to, and may
claim reciprocal protection from the government. (Magsalin, Philippine Political Law, 2007, p.
80)

CITIZEN NATIONALITY
Membership Membership in a political Membership in any class or
community which is more or less form or political community.
permanent in nature.
 Inclusion Includes the right or privilege Does not include the right or
exercising civil or political rights. privilege exercising civil or
political rights.

A. KINDS OF CITIZENSHIP, PURPOSE OF DISTINGUISHING CITIZENSHIP AND KINDS OF

CITIZENSHIP

NATURAL BORN CITIZENS – those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural born citizens (Sec. 2, Article IV, 1987 Constitution). It includes:

a. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Under the jus sanguinis
principle, the fact of being born to a Filipino father or mother confers natural born status.
b. Those who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority age. Under the 1987
Constitution, those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
c. Those former natural born citizens who reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation.

Natural-born citizenship can be reacquired even if it had been once lost. COMELEC's position
that natural-born status must be continuous was already rejected in Bengson III vs. HRET
where the phrase "from birth" was clarified to mean at the time of birth: "A person who at the
time of his birth, is a citizen of a particular country, is anatural-born citizen thereof." Neither is
"repatriation" an act to "acquire or perfect" one's citizenship. There are only two types of citizens
under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born citizen and naturalized, and that there is no third
category for repatriated citizens. (Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 221697,
March 8, 2016)

As a matter of law, foundlings are, as a class, natural-born citizens. (Poe-Llamanzares vs.

COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016) When the names of the parents of a foundling cannot
be discovered despite a diligent search, but sufficient evidence is presented to sustain a
reasonable inference that satisfies the quantum of proof required to conclude that at least one
or both of his or her parents is Filipino, then this should be sufficient to establish that he or she
is a natural-born citizen.

The assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born unless there is substantial evidence
to the contrary. This is necessarily engendered by a complete consideration of the whole
Constitution, not just its provisions on citizenship. This includes its mandate of defending the
well-being of children, guaranteeing equal protection of the law, equal access to opportunities
for public service, and respecting human rights, as well as its reasons for requiring natural-born
status for select public offices. Moreover, this is a reading validated by contemporaneous
construction that considers related legislative enactments, executive and administrative actions,
and international instruments. (David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20,
2016)

NATURALIZED CITIZENS – citizens who are not natural-born citizens but those whichbecome
such in accordance with law. (Art. IV, Sec. 1 [4], 197 Constitution)

Purpose of distinguishing citizenship

Only natural born citizens are qualified to assume the following positions:
a. President (Sec 2, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
b. Vice-President (Sec 3, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
c. Members of Congress (Secs. 3 & 6, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
d. Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals (Sec 7[1], Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution)
e. Ombudsman and Deputies (Sec 8, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
f. Members of the Constitutional Commissions (Sec. 1[1]; Art. IX-B, Art. IX-C, Art. IX-D, 1987
Constitution]
g. Members of the Central Monetary Authority (Sec. 20, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
h. Members of the Commission on Human rights (Sec. 17[2], Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)

 The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ was born, confers
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate. (Tecson, et. al vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
161434, March 3, 2004)

B. WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS?

a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
b. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
c. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. (Sec. 1, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution)

Citizens under the 1935 Constitution

a. Philippine Bill of 1902 – inhabitants as of the adoption of the Treaty of Paris who continued
to reside in the Philippines as well as their children born subsequent thereto.
b. Caram Rule – those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
the Constitution had been elected to public office.

Citizens under the 1973 Constitution

a. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines

b. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority
c. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

C. WHO CAN BE CITIZENS?

Requirements for Naturalization by Judicial Proceeding (Section 2 C.A. 473)

a. At least 21 year old at the date of hearing of the petition.

b. Must have resided in the Philippines for at least 10 years. This can be reduced to 5 years in
any of the following cases:
i. He was born in the Philippines.
ii. He is married to a Filipino woman. An alien woman who marries a Filipino needs only to
have her alien Certificate of Registration canceled in an administrative proceeding upon
 proof of marriage and that she does not possess any of the disqualifications found in
Section 4 of C.A. No. 473.
iii. He has held office in government.
iv. He made a useful invention or established an industry for a period of not less than 2
years.
c. Possesses good moral character, believes in the Constitution and hasconducted himself in
an irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines.
d. Owns real estate in the Philippines worth P5,000.00 or more, or has a lucrative trade,
profession or occupation.
e. Must be able to speak and write Filipino or English and a principal dialect (as modified by the
1987 Constitution). He must have enrolled his children in a recognized school in the
Philippines that teaches Philippine History, civics and government.

Disqualifications

a. Being opposed to organized government.

b. Believing in violence as a means to espouse an idea.
c. A polygamist or believing in such.
d. Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
e. Suffering from an incurable contagious disease or from mental anguish.
f. Not mingling socially with Filipinos, nor embracing Filipino culture, ideas and customs.
g. Being the citizen of a country with which the Philippines is at war, during the time of such
war.
h. No reciprocity, that is, his own country does not grant the same naturalization to Filipinos.

Effects of Naturalization (under Section 15 C.A. 473)

a. Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines
shall be considered citizens thereof.
b. A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of
the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child,
who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a
Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the
Philippines when still aminor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even
after becoming of age.
c. A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent shall be
considered a Philippine citizen, unless within one year after reaching the age of majority, he
fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the American Consulate of the country
where he resides, and to take the necessary oath of allegiance.

GROUNDS FOR DENATURALIZATION

a. Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently.

b. If within 5 years he returns to his native country and establishes a permanent residence
there.
c. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.
d. Minor children failed to graduate by the fault of the parent by neglecting them or transferring
them to another school.
e. Applicant is guilty of violating naturalization laws and the anti-dummy law in availing
privileges available only to Filipinos.
Naturalization by Administrative Proceeding Requirements:

a. Aliens who were born in the Philippines and have resided here since birth are qualified to
acquire Philippine citizenship.
b. Must at least by 18 years of age.
c. Must be of good moral character.
d. Must believe in the principles underlying the Constitution.
e. Must have received his primary and secondary education in a public or private school
recognized by the DECS.
f. Must also have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation from which he
derives income enough for him and his family.
g. Must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any local dialect.
h. Must have mingled with Filipinos and shown a sincere desire to embrace their customs,
traditions and ideals. (R.A. No. 9139; So vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170603, January
29, 2007)
Not all aliens may avail of this.

Disqualifications

a. Those opposed to the government

b. Polygamists
c. Convicts
d. Those suffering from mental illness or incurable disease.

 Availment of tax amnesty does not obliterate lack of good moral character which is a
ground for denaturalization. Decision granting citizenship may be cancelled anytime.
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Mo Ya Lim Yao, G.R. No. L-21289, October 4, 1971)

▪ A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship but the
residence requirement for naturalization will be reduced to 5 years. (Sec. 3, Revised
Naturalization Act)

D. MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP

a. By birth
i.
ii. Jus Sanguinis (blood relationship): All inhabitants of the island who were Spanish
subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their intention of
preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October 11, 1900, were declared
citizens of the Philippines (Section 4, Philippine Bill of 1902).
iii.
 Illegitimate children generally are under the parental authority of one [Filipino] mother
and follow her nationality, not one of the illegitimate [alien] fathers. (Serra vs. Republic of
the Philippines, G.R. No. L-4223, May 12, 1952)
iv.
v. Jus Soli (place of birth): This principle was never applied in the Philippines. (Roa vs.
Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-7011, October 30, 1912)

b. By naturalization
NATURALIZATION - the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the rights that
belong to a natural born citizen, except those rights that specifically reserved by the Constitution
to the latter.

c. By Marriage

When an Alien May Acquire Filipino Citizenship

a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139 (another mode of acquiring

Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is
that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization,
subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualification);
b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as amended (covers native-born aliens
who lived here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along
thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines
and affinity to the customs and traditions); and
c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine
citizenship to an alien. (So vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007)

 A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision

rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be
cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the
court upon any material fact. Law andjurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a
certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the granting of
the certificate. If the government can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason
can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the reglementary period despite its failure to
oppose the petition before the lower court. (So vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170603,
January 29, 2007)

Types of Naturalization

a. Direct Naturalization
b. Derivative Naturalization

 A child benefits from the naturalization if the mother will be a Filipino citizen, either by birth or
naturalization, at the time of her marriage to her alien spouse. Assuming that the mother lost
her Philippine citizenship by marriage but subsequently reacquired during the minority of the
child, it is still necessary for the child to elect Philippine citizenship. (Villahermoso vs.
Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-1663, March 31, 1948)

E. LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law (Sec. 3, Art. IV,
1987 Constitution).

Loss of Citizenship

a. Naturalization in a foreign country. (Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295. June
28, 1996)
b. Express renunciation or expatriation.
c. Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon reaching the age of majority.
d. Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of another country, unless there is
an offensive or defensive pact with the country, or it maintains armed forces in RP with RP’s
consent.
e. Denaturalization
f. Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP (Commonwealth Act No. 63)
 Immigration to the United States by virtue of a “green card,” (immigrant visa) which entitles
one to reside permanently in that country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the
Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in a foreign country result in an
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. (Coquilla vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151914,
July 31, 2002)
 Possession of alien registration certificate unaccompanied by proof of performance of acts
whereby Philippine citizenship had been lost is not adequate proof of loss of citizenship.
(Aznar vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990)

EXPATRIATION – the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.

Re-acquisition of Citizenship

a. By naturalization: This mode of naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63

wherein the applicant must have the following qualifications:
1. The applicant must have lost his original Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a
foreign country or by express renunciation of his citizenship.
2. He must be at least 21 years of age and shall have resided in the Philippines at least 6
months before he applies for naturalization.
3. He must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence, in his relations with the government and with the community in
which he is living.

He subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce all faith and allegiance to the
foreign authority, state or sovereignty of which he was a citizen or subject.

b. By repatriation due to
1. Desertion of the armed forces (Sec. 4, C.A. 63).
2. Service in the armed forces of the Allied Forces in World War II (Sec. 1, R.A. 965)
3. Service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time (Sec 1, R.A. 2630).
4. Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien (Sec. 1, RA 8171).
5. Political and economic necessity.

REPATRIATION – recovery of nationality by individuals who were natural-born citizens of a

state but who had lost their nationality.

 Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. Therefore, if he is a natural-

born citizen before he lost his citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-
born Filipino. (Bengson III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840 May
7, 2001)
 In the absence of any official action or approval by proper authorities, a mere application for
repatriation does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the applicant’s
Philippine citizenship. (Labo vs. Commission on Elections, GR 86564, August 1, 1989)
 A foundling, considered as a natural-born Filipino citizen, re-acquired natural-born Filipino
citizenship when, following her naturalization as a citizen of the United States, she complied
 with the requisites of Republic Act No. 9225. (David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
221538, September 20, 2016)

c. By direct act of Congress

Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act (Republic Act No. 9225): Took effect on
September 17, 2003. Natural-born citizens, by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic. Natural born citizens of the Philippines, who, after the effectivity of
the Act, become citizens of a foreign country, shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking
the aforesaid oath.

Derivative Citizenship: The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below
18 years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of the Act shall
be deemed citizens of the Philippines. (Sec. 4)

Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities: Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship
shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines, subject to the following conditions:

a. Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, RA No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act
of 2003) and other existing laws; Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution
and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officers authorized to administer an oath.

 Even those who retained their Philippine citizenship by birth and acquired foreign
citizenship by virtue of marriage to a foreign spouse are required to renounce their
foreign citizenship (Sobejana-Condon vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 198742, August
10, 2012)

b. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption
of office: Provided, that they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they
took that oath.
c. Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
d. That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot
be exercised by, or extended to those who:
i. Are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are
naturalized citizens; and/or
ii. Are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed
forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens. (Sec. 5, R.A. 9225)

d. Marriage to an alien spouse

Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. (Sec. 4, Art. IV, 1987
Constitution)
F. DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE
 Private respondent’s declaration in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen,
that he is not a permanent resident of another country and that he will defend and support
the Constitution effectively repudiated his American citizenship. His oath of allegiance to the
Philippines when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood,
received his education, practiced his profession and taken part in past elections in this
country leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. The mere filing of a
certificate of candidacy resulted in the renunciation of his American citizenship effectively
removing any disqualification he may have as a dual citizen. (Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No.
135083. May 26, 1999)

DUAL CITIZENSHIP DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Definition Arises when, as a result of
concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said
states.
Application of law May arise from as a consequence
of different laws or mode of
acquiring citizenship.
(Cordora vs COMELEC, G.R. No.176947, February 19, 2009)
A situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by
some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states. It is a
result of an individual’s
violation.
Inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt by
law (Sec. 5, Art. IV, 1987
Constitution)

V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

LEGISLATIVE POWER
The power to propose, enact, amend, and repeal laws.

1. Scope and Limitations

Who may exercise legislative power?

a. Congress of the Philippines, Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that such
power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and
a House of Representatives.

EXCEPTION: The people to themselves, by the system of initiative and referendum.

Except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
The only recognized exceptions thereto would be: (a) delegated legislative power to local
governments which, by immemorial practice, are allowed to legislate on purely local matters;
and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as the authority of the President to, by law,
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war
or other national emergency, or fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government. (Belgica vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566,
November 19, 2013)

b. Regional/Local Legislative Power

Delegation to Local Governments: It is sufficient that the statute indicated the subject matter
over which the local law-making agency may legislate.

Delegation to Administrative Agencies:

a. “Fill up the details” of a statute – subject to the tests of completeness and sufficient
standard;
b. Contingent Legislation – that which leaves to another body the business of ascertaining
the facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation.

▪ The rules and regulations issued by these administrative bodies have the force and effect of
law. However, it must be made clear that the function performed by the administrative
agency is not law-making but law execution.

N.B.: A violation of the rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies may be
punished as penal offense.

Requisites:

1. Such violation be made a crime by the delegating statute itself. (U.S. vs. Grimaud, 20 U.S. 506
[1911])
2. The regulation must be published. (People vs. Que Po Lay, G.R. No. L-6791, March 29, 1954)

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY - Potestas delegate non potestdelegare(what has been

delegated cannot be further delegated).

A. CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS; COMPOSITION; QUALIFICATION

1. Senate
Composition: The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four (24) Senators who shall be elected
at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. (Sec. 2, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)

Qualifications: No person shall be a Senator unless he is:

a. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

b. On the day of the election, is at least thirty-five (35) years of age;
c. Able to read and write;
d. A registered voter;
e. A resident of the Philippines for not less than two (2) years immediately preceding the day of
the election. (Section 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

Restriction:

a. They must be possessed during the officer’s entire incumbency;

b. The qualifications prescribed by the Constitution are exclusive and the legislature may not
make additional qualifications;
c. Property qualifications are not allowed as no person may be denied a chance to be elected
to public office by reason of poverty (Maquera vs. Borra, G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965);
and
d. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. (Sec. 5, Art. III,
1987 Constitution)

Term of Office: 6 years, to commence at noon of June 30, following the election.

Limitation: No Senator shall serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms.

Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. (Section 4, par 2, Article
VI, 1987 Constitution)

2. House of Representatives

Composition: Not more than 250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law. Consists of:

a. District Representatives – who shall be entitled to 80% of the seats to be elected from
legislative districts.
b. Party-List Representatives – who shall constitute 20% of the total number of
representatives, elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.

Domiciliary Requirement:

a. If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of the residence requirement for
representatives, the one-year period is irrelevant because by legal fiction, wherever he may
be, he is a resident of his domicile of origin; and
b. If a person re-establishes a previously abandoned domicile or acquires a new one, the one-
year requirement must be satisfied. (Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995)

▪ Immigration to the US by virtue of the acquisition of a “green card” constitutes

abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. (Caasi vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
88831, November 8, 1990).
▪ A minor follows the domicile of his parents.” (Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
119976, September 18, 1995)
▪ Domicile imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in
that place coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. Requisites: (1) residence or
bodily presence in the new locality; (2) an intention to remain there; and (3) an intention to
abandon the odd domicile. (Gallego vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-48641, November 24, 1941)
▪ The wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term “residence”
in Civil Law does not mean the same in Political Law. (Marcos vs. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995)

Term of Office: 3 years (unless otherwise provided by law) commencing at noon of the 30 th of
June, following their election (2nd Monday of May).
Limitation: No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected. (Section 7, par 2, Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

a. District representatives and questions of apportionment

Apportionment of Legislative Districts

▪ Apportionment shall be made in accordance with the number of respective inhabitants on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
▪ Each city with not less than 250,000 inhabitants shall be entitled to at least one
representative. Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population
only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
▪ Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants, is entitled to one representative.
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory.

 Gerrymandering which is the practice of creating legislative districts to favor a particular

candidate or party. (Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994)
 There is no reason why the Mariano case (Mariano, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. no.
118577, March 7, 1995), which involves the creation of an additional district within a city,
should not be applied to additional district in provinces. Indeed, if an additional legislative
district created within a city is not required to represent a population of at least 250,000 in
order to be valid, neither should such be needed for an additional district in a province is
entitled to an initial seat by the mere fact of its creation and regardless of its population. (Sen.
Benigno Aquino and Mayor Jesse Robredo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189793, April 7,
2010)

Reappointment of Legislative districts

Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make reappointment
of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. (Sec. 5(4), Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

▪ Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law. To hold that
reapportionment can be made only through a general law would create an inequitable
situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time, which would deprive the people in the new
city of province a particle of their sovereignty. (Tobias vs. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, December
8, 1994)

b. Party-list System (Republic Act No. 7941)

A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the
people. (Sec. 2[5], Art. IX, 1987 Constitution)

Under this system, a voter elects, apart from the district representative, a registered party,
organization or coalition that will be entitled to a maximum of three (3) party-list representatives
in the House of Representatives, depending on its obtaining a required percentage of the
national vote.
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM – a mechanism or proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Election (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
7941).

Number of Party-List Representatives: 20% of the total number of the members of the
House of Representatives including those under the party-list.

GENERAL RULE: The Party-List Representatives shall have the same rights and be subject to
the same inhibitions and disqualifications as a District Representative.
Any Party-List Representative who changes his political party or sectoral application during his
term of office shall forfeit his seat. If the change is made within six (6) months before an
election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as a Party-List Representative under his new
party or organization.

Allocation of Seats: The parties, organization, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest
to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. Those receiving
at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one
seat each. Those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes in proportion to their total
number of votes. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than 3 seats
(Sec. 11, R.A. No. 7941).

GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL AND/OR CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL

PARTIES

a. Ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;

b. Advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
c. Religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious
purposes;
d. Receives support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through
third parties for partisan election purposes;
e. Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
f. Untruthful statements in its petition;
g. Foreign party or organization;
h. Fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding election;
i. Fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in
the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.

Recent Ruling on the 2% Threshold: The Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional the two
percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list seats in the second clause of Sec.
11(b) of R.A. No. 7941, the Party-List System Act. The Court held that the provision struck down
is an “unwarranted obstacle” to the attainment of the broadest possible representation of party,
sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. (Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009)

JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDEPOSTS

a. Veterans Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 136781, October 6,
2010): Panganiban Formula for seat allocation
 ▪ 20% allocation of total House of Representatives seats for Party-List Representatives;
▪ 2% threshold
▪ Three-seat limit

b. Bagong Bayani Party-List vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001):
Guidelines in determining eligibility for Party-List election

a. Must represent marginalized and underrepresented;

b. Must show that they represent the marginalized and underrepresented;
c. Must not be a religious organization or sect;
d. Must not be disqualified under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7941;
e. Must not be an adjunct of a project assisted or funded by the government;
f. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must
likewise do so;
g. Nominees must be Filipino citizens who belong to marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties; and
h. The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appreciate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole

c. Advancement and Transparency vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 179271, April 21,
2009)

Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 mandates the filling up of the entire 20% allocation of
party-list representatives found in the Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Sec. 5 of
Art VI, left the determination of the number of the members of the House of Representatives to
Congress. The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
representatives cannot be more than 20% of the members of the House of Representatives.

d. Atong paglaum, Inc. vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013):
Parameters in determining Party-List winners

a. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections;
b. The parties, organization, and coalitions receiving at least two (2%) of the total votes cast
for the party list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each;
c. Those garnering sufficient number of votes according to the ranking in paragraph 1, shall
be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until the
additional seats are allocated; and
d. Each party, organization or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Computation of Additional Seats: In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats
shall no longer be included because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to
every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation as “additional seats” are
the maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional
seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in RA 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
fractional seats.

MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION OF VOTES GARNERED BY PARTY-LIST CANDIDATES

a. Veteran Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections

 i. Formula for determining additional seats for the first Party-List

In the case of Veteran Federation Party vs. Commission on Elections, the only basis given by
the law is that a party receiving at least two percent of the total votes shall be entitled to one
seat. Proportionally, if the first party was to receive twice the number of votes of the second
party, it should be entitled to twice the latter's number of seats and so on. The formula,
therefore, for computing the number of seats to which the first party is entitled is as follows:

Number of votes of first Party ÷ Total votes for Party-List System = Proportion of votes of first
Party relative to total votes for Party-List System

If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six
percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups, then the first party shall be
entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall.
If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less
than six percent, then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. And if the
proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional
seat.

The Supreme Court adopted this six percent benchmark, because the first party is not always
entitled to the maximum number of additional seats. Likewise, it would prevent the allotment of
more than the total number of available seats, such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more
parties tie for the highest rank and are thus entitled to three seats each. In such scenario, the
number of seats to which all the parties are entitled may exceed the maximum number of party-
list seats reserved in the House of Representatives.

i. Formula for determining additional seats for other qualified Party-Lists

Additional seats for concerned Party-List = (Votes casts for qualified Party-List ÷ Votes casts
for First Party-List) x Number of additional seats allocated for the first Party-List

b. Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency vs. Commission

on Elections

In the case of BANAT vs. Commission on Elections, the percentage of votes garnered by each
party-list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by
15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates [in the 2007 elections].

There are two steps in the second round of seat allocation:

1. The percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 328, which is the difference
between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the Party-List System and the 17
guaranteed seats of the two-percenters. The whole integer of the product of the percentage
and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining
available seats.
2. Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are
completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of
seat allocation.
▪ Apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate
is entitled, the Supreme Court clarified.
▪ The Court stressed that though neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 mandates that the
20% allocation of Party-List Representatives be entirely filled up, “we cannot allow the
continued existence of a provision in the law [referring to the two percent threshold in the
distribution of additional party-list seats in sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 which will systematically
prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party-list representation from being filled.”
▪ The Court, however, upheld the three-seat cap as it is a valid statutory device that prevents
any party from dominating the party-list elections.

▪ SEPARATE OPINION by Justice Nachura: Until Congress shall have effected an acceptable
amendment to the minimum vote requirement in RA 7941, a gradually regressive threshold
vote requirement, inversely proportional to the increase in the number of party-list seats,
should be adopted such that the minimum vote requirement will gradually lessen as the
number of party-list seats increase. (BANAT vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009)

Term of Office

▪ Party-list representatives shall be elected for a term of 3 years;

▪ No party-list representative shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms; and
▪ Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. (Sec. 14,
R.A. No. 7941)
▪ Under Sec. 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.” Surely, the interests
of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or
the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give
genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)

Vacancy: The vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of
nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization, or coalition,
who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization coalition
concerned shall submit additional nominees (Sec. 16, R.A. No. 7941).

Rights: Party-List Representatives shall be entitled to the same salaries and emoluments as
regular members of the House of Representatives (Sec. 17, R.A. 7941).

NATURE OF PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

▪ The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great
masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable
lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed
to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely
passive recipients of the State’s benevolence, but active participants in the mainstream of
representative democracy. (Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, GR No.
147589, June 26, 2001)
GUIDELINES FOR SCREENING PARTY-LIST CANDIDATES

In Ang Bagong Bayani case, the Supreme Court decided that major political parties may
participate in the party list elections provided that they are consistent with the purpose of the
party list system as provided in the Constitution and RA 7941 which is to represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society. In BANAT case, the Supreme Court
categorically declared that major political parties are not allowed to directly or indirectly
participate in the party list elections.

▪ We declare that it would not be in accord with the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941 to
apply the criteria in Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT in determining who are qualified to
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections. (Atong Paglaum vs. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 203776, April 2, 2013)

In the Atong Paglaum case, the following guidelines for the determination of eligibility of a party
list to participate in the May 13 elections are provided as follows:

a. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or sectoral parties or organizations.
b. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-
list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party,
whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can participate in
party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party-
list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition.
c. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or
lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.”
d. It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of
their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented” include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,
and overseas workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
e. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies” must belong to the
sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack “well-defined political
constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record
of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
f. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified.

B. LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

PRIVILEGES

Salaries
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by
law. Increase in said compensation shall not take effect until after the expiration of the full term
of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.
(Sec. 10, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

▪ The use of the word "term" in the singular, when combined with the following phrase "all the
members of the Senate and of the House", underscores that in the application of Article VI,
Section 14, the fundamental consideration is that the terms of office of all members of the
Legislature that enacted the measure (whether Senators or Representatives) must have
expired before the increase in compensation can become operative. Such disregard of the
separate houses, in favor of the whole, accords in turn with the fact that the enactment of
laws rests on the shoulders of the entire Legislative body; responsibility therefor is not
apportionable between the two chambers. (Philconsa vs. Mathay, G.R. No. L-25554, October 4,
1966)

Parliamentary Privileges

a. Immunity from Arrest

A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.
No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
in the Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Ratio: To enable the lawmakers to perform legislative duty without fear of criminal prosecution.
However, the provision does not protect them from possible disciplinary actions that their
colleagues might impose.

▪ This applies to offenses punishable by not more than 6 years of imprisonment. If the crime is
punishable by more than six (6) years, then the member can be arrested;
▪ Privilege applies while Congress is in session.
▪ The penalty of prision coreccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
shall, while the Assembly is in regular or special session, arrest or search any member
thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime punishable under this Code by
a penalty higher than prision mayor. (Article 145, Revised Penal Code)

▪ When arrested: Membership in Congress does not exempt an accused from statutes and
rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons. It would amount to the creation of a
privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal
offense, they would be considered immune from arrest during their attendance in Congress
and in going to and returning from the same. Moreover, the accused-appellant is provided
with an office at the House of Representatives with a full complement of staff, as well as an
office at the Administration Building, New Bilibid Prison, where he attends to his constituents;
he has, therefore, been discharging his mandate as member of the House of
Representatives. (People of the Philippines vs. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, February 3, 2000)

Restrictive Construction of the Constitutional Provision of “Immunity from Arrest and

Detention”

The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of
Representatives is a special privilege which cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning
of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication, or equitable considerations. The
1973 Constitution – Sec. 9, Art. VIII – broadened the privilege of immunity as follows:

A Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest during his attendance at its
sessions and in going to and returning from the same.

For offenses punishable by more than six years imprisonment, there was no immunity
from arrest. The restrictive interpretation of immunity and the intent to confine it within
carefully defined parameters is illustrated by the concluding portion of the provision,
to wit:

xxx but the Batasang Pambansa shall surrender the member involved to the custody
of the law within twenty-four hours after its adjournment for a recess or for its next
session, otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so.

▪ The present Constitution adheres to the same restrictive rules minus the obligation of
Congress to surrender the subject Congressman to the custody of the law. The requirement
that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been removed. For
relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session. (People of the Philippines vs.
Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875, February 3, 2000)

b. Freedom of Speech and Debate Clause

No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

▪ This privilege insulates the member concerned from suits that may be filed against him for a
speech, utterance or other form of expression made in Congress or in any of its committees
in the discharge of legislative duty. The provision does not protect members of the Congress
from possible disciplinary measures that his colleagues in Congress may impose on him.
▪ Privilege applies only while Congress is in session and not when it is in recess. (Jimenez vs.
Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-19505, August 3, 1966)

Scope: While parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression
without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other
forum outside of the Congressional Hall, however, it does not protect him from responsibility
before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter
disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. For unparliamentary conduct, members of
Congress can be censured, committed to prison, suspended, and even expelled by the votes of
their colleagues.

INHIBITIONS

1. Legislators shall not personally appear as counsel before any Court of Justice, or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial or other administrative bodies. (Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
2. Legislators cannot be interested financially, either directly or indirectly, in any contract,
franchise or special privilege granted by the government.

Legislators cannot intervene in any matter before any office of the government:
 a. For his pecuniary benefit; or
b. Where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. (Sec. 14, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

▪ Upon assumption of office, legislators must make a full disclosure of financial and business
interests. (Sec. 12, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

▪ They must notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from
the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. (Sec. 12, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

DISQUALIFICATIONS

No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. (Sec. 13, Art. VI,
1987 Constitution)

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE – a member cannot accept any other office employment in

government during his term unless he waives or forfeits his seat in Congress.

▪ Forfeiture of the seat in Congress or cessation of his tenure shall be automatic upon the
member’s assumption of such other office deemed incompatible with his seat in Congress.
▪ However, no forfeiture shall take place if the member of Congress holds the other
government office in an ex officio capacity.
▪ The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government to the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the impairment of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
▪ Exempted from this provision is the holding of a second office which is an extension of his
legislative duties or is in aid of his legislative position. (Liban vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352,
January 18, 2011)

FORBIDDEN OFFICE – a member of Congress cannot be appointed to any office which may
have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was
elected. (Sec. 13, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

▪ The ban against such appointment to the office shall however last only for the duration of the
term for which the member of Congress was elected but lasts even if he resigns from
Congress before the end of his term.

ACT PARTIES VOTING REQUIREMENT

Initiate impeachment 1/3 of ALL members of the
House of Representatives
proceeding House
Convict an impeachable Senate 2/3 of ALL members
officer
Proposal to amend or revise Both Houses (Constituent ¾ of ALL members
the Constitution Assembly)
Constitutional Convention Both Houses ¾
Concur in Treaties or Senate 2/3 ALL members
International Agreements
Override the veto of the
President in the passage of Both Houses, voting separately 2/3 of ALL members
a Bill
Declare the existence of war Both Houses, voting separately
2/3
Joint session assembled
Concur in Executive’s power
to grant amnesty, reprieves, Both Houses Majority of ALL members
commutations, and pardons
Submit to the electorate the
question of calling a Both Houses Majority of ALL members
Constitutional Convention
Declare that the President is
unable to discharge the
Both Houses, voting separately 2/3
powers and duties of his
office
Revoke or extend the
President’s suspension of
the privilege of the Writ of Both Houses, voting separately Majority of ALL members
Habeas Corpus or
proclamation of Martial Law
Call a Constitutional Both Houses 2/3 ALL members
Convention
To put the yeas and nays in Each House 1/5
the journal
To elect a Senate President Senate 2/3 of ALL members
To elect the Speaker of the House of Representatives 2/3 of ALL members
House of Representative
To determine the rules of its Each House 2/3 of ALL members
proceedings, suspend for at
most sixty (60) days or expel
a member of such House; or
discipline members for
disorderly behaviour
In case of vacancy by the Both Houses, voting separately Majority of ALL members
VP, confirmation of a new
VP nominated by the
President.
Law granting tax exemption Both Houses Majority of ALL members
To constitute a quorum to do Each House Majority of each House
business
A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner,
and under such penalties, as such House may provide. (Sec. 16[2], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

The quorum required to conduct business is a majority (1/2 + 1) of all the members.

The basis in determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of
Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate. (Avelino vs.
Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949)

In its Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, in Arroyo vs. De Venecia (G.R. No. 127255,
June 26, 1998), the Supreme Court declared that the question of quorum cannot be raised
repeatedly, especially when a quorum is obviously present, for the purpose of delaying the
business of the House.

Rules of Proceedings

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. (Sec. 16[3], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)

These rules include the procedure to be followed in "inquiries in aid of legislation." The Senate
or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. (Sec. 21, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

The House may set aside the rules it adopted as it sees fit, because these rules are only of a
temporary nature.

These rules include the mode and manner of conducting the business of the body. They are
intended for the orderly and proper disposition of the matters before it.

Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no
concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, “mere
failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative
body) when the requisites number of members have agreed to a particular measure.” (Arroyo vs.
De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997)

Journal and Congressional Records

Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on
any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.” (Sec.16[4], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]

Enrolled Bill Theory

Once a Bill has been approved by both houses, the Bill is enrolled, and this Enrolled Copy of the
Bill bears the certification of the Presiding Officer of the house (either Senate President or
Speaker of the House) that this Bill as enrolled is the version passed by each house. The
purpose of the certification is to prevent attempts at smuggling in “riders”. The enrolled copy is
then sent to the President for his action.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the enrolled bill, explained that its basis is the separation of
powers, so that the remedy of an aggrieved party is not a judicial decree but a legislative
amendment or curative legislation. (Morales vs. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968)

Note however the case of Astorga v Villegas (G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974), upon being
informed that the enrolled bill did not contain the amendment proposed by Senator Tolentino
(regarding the powers of the Vice-Mayor of Manila) when the house bill was raised to the
Senate, the Senate President, withdrew his signature and notified the President of the mistake,
who then likewise withdrew his signature. In short because of the withdrawal, there was no
occasion, then, to apply the enrolled bill theory.

Q: What happens if there is a discrepancy between the enrolled copy of the bill, and any other
copy of the bill?

A: The enrolled bill will prevail (Mabanag v Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947)

Probative Value of the Journal: The journal is conclusive on the courts as to its contents (US V
Pons, G.R. No. L-11530, August 12, 1916)

Matters Required to be Entered in the Journal

1. Yeas and nays on third and final reading of a bill (Sec. 26[2], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
2. Veto Message of the President (Sec. 27[1], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution);
3. Yeas and nays on the repassing of a bill vetoed by the President (Sec. 27[1], Art.VI,
1987 Constitution); and
4. Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of members present (Sec. 16[4],
Art.VI, 1987 Constitution)

A record, on the other hand, contains the verbatim transcript of all proceedings of the house or
its committees. The Constitution is silent as to what the record must contain. Note however, in
Sec. 3(3) of Art. XI, the Constitution speaks of the vote of each member of the House either
affirming a favorable or overriding its contrary resolution of the impeachment complaint to be
"recorded."

Journal Entry Rule vs Enrolled Bill Theory

In Astorga vs. Villegas, by way of obiter dictum, the Supreme Court indicated that the journal
might really prevail over the enrolled bill, since a journal is required by the Constitution, while
the enrollment of a bill is just a legislative practice that is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
Further, enrollment does not add to the validity of the bill, for what makes it valid are the votes of
the members. This ruling however seem to contradict the ruling in Morales v Subido that the
enrolled copy prevails over the journal. Reconciling these two decisions, as to matters required
by the Constitution to be placed in the journal, the journal is conclusive. But aside from these
matters, any other matter does not enjoy such conclusiveness.
Congressional Record

Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. (Sec. 16[4], art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Sessions

The Congress shall convene once every year in 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 (30) 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. (Sec. 15, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without consent of the other, adjourn
for more than three (3) days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be
sitting. (Sec. 16[5], Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

Regular Sessions

Congress shall convene every fourth (4th) 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 (30) days before the opening of its next regular session. (Sec. 15, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)

Special Sessions Called by the President

May be called at any time by the President, at his absolute discretion, to consider such subjects
as he may determine.

Congress, however, determines the number of days it needs for such session.

Special Sessions Called by Congress without Need of Call

1. To pass a bill calling for the holding of a special election when there is a vacancy in the
office of the President and Vice President. (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. To determine by 2/3 vote whether the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office. (Sec. 11, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
3. To canvass the Presidential elections
4. To exercise the power of impeachment
5. To extend or revoke the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus. (Sec. 18[2], Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).

Joint Sessions and Separate Voting

The following are the instances when Congress meets jointly but votes separately:

1. When Congress, acting as a Board of Canvassers, breaks the tie between two or more
candidates for President and Vice-President (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. When Congress decides on the question of the President’s inability to discharge the
powers and functions of his office. (Sec. 11[4], Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
3. When there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President, and Congress has to
confirm the nomination made by the President. (Sect. 9, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
 4. When Congress declares the existence of a state of war (Sec. 23[1], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
5. Proposing constitutional amendments (Sec. 1, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for
the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years is not merely authorized by law, it has
constitutional foundations. One rationale behind confinement, whether pending appeal or after
final conviction, is public self-defense. It is the injury to the public which State action in criminal
law seeks to redress. It is not the injury to the complainant. (People of the Philippines vs. Jalosjos,
G.R. No. 132875, February 3, 2000)

Voting Jointly: To revoke or extend a proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or placing the Philippines under martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. (Sec. 16[3], Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)

The power to punish and expel a member of Congress is a necessary and incidental power of
the legislative body to enable it to perform its high functions and is necessary to the safety of the
State. It is a power of protection. (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed. Vol. I, 1868)

The determination of the acts which constitute disorderly behavior is within the full discretionary
authority of the House concerned, and the Court will not review such determination, the same
being a political question. (Osmena vs. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960)

The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ranks. The situation contemplated in the Constitution is a punitive
measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate of the House of Representatives, as
the case may be, upon an erring Member. The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may
not be deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from Republic Act No. 3019
nor from its sanctions. (Defensor-Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126055, April 19, 2001)

PROCESS OF LAW-MAKING

Bill – a proposed legislative measure introduced by a member or members of Congress for

enactment into law. It may originate from either the lower or upper House.

Except bills which shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives:

1. appropriation bills;
2. revenue or tariff bills;
3. bills authorizing increase of public debt;
4. bills of local application; and
5. private bills
Steps in the passage of bill into law

First Reading: Involves the reading of the number and the title of the measure and referring of it
to proper authority.

Note: A bill shall embrace only one subject to be stated in the title of the bill. (Art. VI, Sec. 26,
par. (1), 1987 Constitution)

Three readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form, distributed to
members three (3) days before its passage, except when the President certifies to its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last reading, no amendment shall
be allowed and the vote thereon taken immediately and the yeas and nays entered into journal.
(Art. VI, Sec. 26, par. (2), 1987 Constitution)

Second Reading: The bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon, and amended if
necessary. The most important stage in the passage of a bill.

Note: The bill as approved on second reading is printed in its final form and copies thereof are
distributed at least three days before the third reading.

Third Reading: Members registered their votes, either yea or nay (Art. VI, Sec. 26, par. (2), 1987
Constitution) and explain their vote if they are allowed by the rules.

Note: Appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of
local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives
(Sec. 24, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

While Art. VI, Sec. 24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must "originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a
substitute measure. (Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995)

Jurisprudential Guide Post:

The title need not be an index of the contents of the bill. It is enough for the title to be
comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose that the statute seeks
to achieve. (Tio vs. VRB, G.R. No. L-75697, June 18, 1987)

It is well-settled that the "one title-one subject" rule does not require the Congress to employ in
the title of the enactment language of such precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the
contents and the minute details therein. The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is
comprehensive enough as to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect, and
where, as here, the persons interested are informed of the nature, scope and consequences of
the proposed law and its operation. (Imbong vs Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 24, 2014)

No further debate is allowed during the third reading. The phrase “except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment” qualifies not only the requirement that
printed copies of a bill in its final form must be distributed to the members three days before its
passage but also the requirement that before a bill can become a law, it must have passed
“three readings on separate days”. (Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30,
1995)

A legislative act will not be declared invalid for non-compliance with the internal rules of the
House. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998)

In cases of bills that must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Constitution
does not prohibit the Senate to prepare for a bill in anticipation of the bill coming from the Lower
House as long as it does not act on it until it receives the bill from HOR (Alvarez vs Guingona,
G.R. No. 118303, January 31, 1996)

Bicameral Conference Committee

In a bicameral system, bills are independently processed by both houses of Congress. The
Conference Committee consisting of members nominated for both Houses is an extra-
constitutional creation of Congress whose function is to propose to Congress ways of
reconciling conflicting provisions found in the Senate version and House version of the
bill.(Bernas, Commentary, supra at 789).

They should not, however, perform functions that the Congress itself may not do. Moreover,
their proposals need confirmation by both Houses of Congress. (Id.)

Following the US practice, amendments germane to the purpose of the bill could be introduced
even if these were not in either original bill. (Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, supra).

The Bicameral Conference Committee is not required to comply with the “three (3) readings on
three (3) separate days” requirement, and with the “limitation on no-amendment on third
reading” rule. (ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005)

Authentication of bills

Signing by the Speaker and the Senate President of the printed copy of the approved bill and
certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses to signify to the President that the bill
being presented to him has been duly approved by Congress and is ready for his approval or
rejection. (Astorga vs. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974)

How a bill passed becomes a law

When the President signs it;
When the President vetoes it but the veto is overridden by 2/3 of all the members of each
House; or
When the President does not act upon the measure within thirty (30) days after the day of
receipt thereof. (Art. VI, Sec. 27, par. (1), 1987 Constitution)

APPROPRIATION LAW – a statute the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the
release of public funds from the Treasury.

Power of Appropriation

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by
law. (Sec. 29[1], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
The power to appropriate must be exercised only through legislation.

To understand what constitutes an act of appropriation, the Supreme Court, in Bengzon vs.
Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor (G.R. No. L-42821, January 18, 1936) held that the
power of appropriation involves (a) the setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public
revenue for (b) a specified purpose. Essentially, under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual
legislators are given a personal lump-sum fund from which they are able to dictate (a) how
much from such fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they themselves also
determine. As these two (2) acts comprise the exercise of the power of appropriation as
described in Bengzon and given that the 2013 PDAF Article authorizes individual legislators to
perform the same, undoubtedly, said legislators have been conferred the power to legislate
which the Constitution does not, however, allow. Thus, keeping with the principle of non-
delegability of legislative power, the Supreme Court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF Article, as
well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar legislative
identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional. The power to determine what kind
of infrastructure to prioritize and fund is a power to determine the purpose of the appropriation
and is an undue delegation of the power to appropriate. (Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No.
208566, November 19, 2013)

Classes of Appropriation Law

General Appropriations Law – passed annually, intended to provide for the financial operations
of the entire government during one fiscal period.

The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty (30) days from the opening of every
regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and
sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. (Section
22, Article VII, 1987 Constitution)

Special Appropriations Law – designed for a specific purpose.

A special appropriations bills shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposal therein. (Section 25(4), Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

The spending power, called the Power of the Purse belongs to Congress, subject only to the
veto power of the President. While it is the President who proposes the budget, still, the final
say on the matter of appropriation is lodged in Congress. The power of appropriation carries
with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can
be as detailed and broad as Congress wants it to be. (Philippines Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 14, 1994)

Power of Augmentation

The President, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, heads of Constitutional Commissions may by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriation (Art. VI, Sec. 25, par. (5), 1987 Constitution)

Under the doctrine of qualified political agencies, power of augmentation could be well extended
to the Cabinet Secretaries as alter egos. (Nazareth vs. Villar, G.R. No. 188635, January 29, 2013)
Requisites for a valid transfer of funds

1. There must be a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads
of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices;
2. The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their
respective offices; and
The purpose of the transfer is to augment an existing item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices (Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)

Prohibited Cross-Border Augmentation

The Supreme Court held in Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014, that the GAAs of
2011 and 2012 lacked valid provisions to authorized fund transfer. The aforequoted provisions
of the 2011 and 2012 GAAs were textually unfaithful to the Constitution for not carrying the
phrase “for their respective offices” the impact of said phrase was to authorize only transfers of
funds within their offices. The provisions carried a different phrase, and the effect was that the
GAAs of 2011 and 2012 thereby literally allowed the transfer of funds from savings to augment
any item in the GAA even if the item belonged to an office outside the Executive. The 2011 and
201 GAAs contravene to the Constitution to that extent.

Limitations on Revenue Appropriations and Tariff Measures

Implied Limitations on Appropriation Measures

1. Appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose.

2. The sum authorized must be determinate, or at least determinable . (Belgica vs. Ochoa, Jr.,
G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013)

Constitutional limitations on appropriation measures

All appropriations, revenue or tariff, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application and private bills shall originate in the House of Representatives. (Section 24, Article
VI, 1987 Constitution)

The exclusivity of the prerogative of the House means simply that the House can initiate the
passage of a revenue bill, such that the House does not initiate one, no revenue law will be
passed. But once the House has approved a revenue bill and passed it on to the Senate, the
Senate can completely overhaul it, by amendment of parts or by amendment by substitution,
and come out with one completely different from what the House approved.” (Tolentino vs. Sec. of
Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995)

Disbursements of discretionary funds must only be for a public purpose to be supported by

appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.

Prohibition against appropriations for sectarian benefit. (Section 29[2], Article VI, 1987
Constitution)

Constitutional Rules on General Appropriations law (Sec. 25, Art. e VI, 1987 Constitution)
 1. Congress cannot increase the appropriations recommended by the President as
specified in the budget.

2. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.

3. No provision or enactment shall be embraced unless it relates specifically to some

particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it relates. (Reason: Intended to prevent riders, or
irrelevant provisions included in the bill to ensure its approval).

4. Procedure for approving appropriations for Congress shall strictly follow the procedure
for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.

Ratio: Intended to prevent sub rosa appropriation by Congress.

GENERAL RULE: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations.

EXCEPTION: The President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law
for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (Sec.
25[5], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable requisites to, or
conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. (Commission on Elections vs.
Judge Quijano, GR No. 151992, September 18, 2002)

The members of Congress only determine the necessity of the realignment of savings in the
allotments for their operational expenses, because they are in the best position to do so, being
knowledgeable of the savings available in some items of the operational expenses, and which
items need augmentation. However, it is the Senate President or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall approve the realignment. (Philippine Constitution
Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19,1994)

Strict construction on the accumulation and utilization of savings (DAP case)

The exercise of the power to augment shall be strictly construed by virtue of its being an
exception to the general rule that the funding of PAPs shall be limited to the amount fixed by
Congress for the purpose. Necessarily, savings, their utilization and their management will also
be strictly construed against expanding the scope of the power to augment. Such a strict
interpretation is essential in order to keep the Executive and other budget implementors within
the limits of their prerogatives during budget execution, and to prevent them from unduly
transgressing Congress’ power of the purse. Hence, regardless of the perceived beneficial
purposes of the DAP, and regardless of whether the DAP is viewed as an effective tool of
stimulating the national economy, the acts and practices under the DAP and the relevant
provisions of NBC No. 541 cited in the Decision should remain illegal and unconstitutional as
long as the funds used to finance the projects mentioned therein are sourced from savings that
deviated from the relevant provisions of the GAA, as well as the limitation on the power to
augment under Sec. 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution. In a society governed by laws, even
the best intentions must come within the parameters defined and set by the Constitution and the
law. Laudable purposes must be carried out through legal methods.” (Araullo, vs. Aquino III, G.R.
No. 209287, February 03, 2015)

The following acts and practices under DAP were declared to be unconstitutional:

1. The withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the
declaration of the withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as
savings prior to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory
definition of savings contained in the GAA;
2. The cross-border transfers of the savings of the executive to augment the appropriations
of other offices outside the executive;
3. The funding of programs, activities and projects (PAPs) that are not covered by any
appropriation in the GAA since augmentation can only be made from one existing item to
another existing item in the budget; and (eventually became valid upon granting of MR)
4. The use of unprogrammed funds in the absence of a legally required certification by the
whole revenue collection exceeded the total revenue targets . (Araullo, vs. Aquino III, G.R.
No. 209287, February 03, 2015)

Automatic Re-appropriation: If by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to
pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law
for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect
until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress” (Sec. 25[7], Art. VI, 1987
Constitution).

Appropriation reserves (Sec. 37, Administrative Code)

The Budget Secretary is authorized to establish reserves against appropriations to provide for
contingencies and emergencies which may arise during the year.
This is merely expenditure deferral, not suspension since the agencies concerned can still draw
on the reserves if the fiscal outlook improves.

IMPOUNDMENT – the refusal by the President for whatever reason to spend funds made
available by Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type.
(Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)

Constitutional Limitations on Special Appropriations Measures:

1. Must specify the public purpose for which the sum was intended.
2. Must be supported by funds actually available as certified to by the National Treasurer,
or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein. (Section 25[4],
Article VI, 1987 Constitution)

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS AND THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

Two Types:

Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)

House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
1. Nature

Although the Electoral Tribunals are predominantly legislative in membership and the provision
creating them is found in Art. VI on the Legislative Department, it is not correct to say that they
are mere adjuncts of the Congress of the Philippines. In fact, in the discharge of their
constitutional duties, they are independent of the legislature, and also of the other departments
for that matter. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2014)

Composition:

1. Three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice;
2. The Senior Justice shall be its Chairman; and
3. Six (6) members of the Senate (SET) or House of Representatives (HRET) (Sec. 17, Art.
VI, 1987 Constitution)

The presence of the three Justices is meant to tone down the political nature of the cases
involved and do away with the impression that party interests play a part in the decision-making
process.

Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules requires the presence of at least one Justice and four
members of the Tribunal to constitute a quorum. This means that even when all the Justices are
present, at least two members of the House of Representatives need to be present to constitute
a quorum. Without this rule, it would be possible for five members of the House of
Representatives to convene and have a quorum even when no Justice is present . (Ongsiako
Reyes v HRET, GR No. 221103, October 16, 2018)

Basis: Proportional representation from the Political Parties and Party-Lists.

Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET and Commission on Appointments can the party-
list representatives seek recourse from the Court through judicial review. Under the Doctrine of
Primary Administrative Jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is necessary before the case
may be brought to Court. (Pimentel vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No 141489,
November 29, 2002)

The HRET was created as a non-partisan court. It must be independent of Congress and devoid
of partisan influence and consideration. Hence, “disloyalty to the party” and “breach of party
discipline” are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member.” (Bondoc vs. Pineda, G.R. No.
97710, September 26, 1991)

2. Powers

The Electoral Tribunals of the Houses of Congress shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their members. (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)

The decisions of the Electoral Tribunals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court only upon
showing of grave abuse of discretion in a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court. (Pena vs HRET, G.R. No. 123037, March 21, 1997)
The HRET may assume jurisdiction only after the winning candidate (who is a party to the
election controversy) shall have been duly proclaimed, has taken his oath of office, and has
assumed the functions of the office, because it is only then that he is said to be a member of the
House.” (Aquino vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995)

The proclamation divests the Commission on Elections of jurisdiction over the question of
disqualifications pending before it at the time of the proclamation. Any case pertaining to
questions over the qualifications of a winning candidate should be raised before the House of
Representative Electoral Tribunal. (Jalosjos, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192474, June
26, 2012)

The power of HRET does not carry with it the authority to delve into the legality of the judgment
of the naturalization of respondent’s father, in the pursuit of disqualifying Rep. Lim Kaichong. To
rule otherwise would be an impermissible attack on the citizenship of respondent’s father.
(Vilando vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 192147, August 23, 2011)

The power granted to the HRET by Sec. 17, Art XI of the 1987 Constitution is intended to be as
complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. Thus, the HRET, as
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of
the House of Representatives, may annul election results if in its determination, fraud, terrorism
or other electoral irregularities existed to warrant the annulment. Because in doing so, it is
merely exercising its constitutional duty to ascertain who among the candidates received the
majority of the valid votes cast. (Abayon vs HRET GR No. 22236 May 3, 2016)

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

1. Nature: Revived in the 1987 Constitution to limit, once again, the President’s appointing
power. (Sec. 18, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Composition:

Senate President as ex-officio chairman

12 Senators
12 Members of the House of Representatives

The 12 Senators and 12 members of the House of Representatives are elected by each house
on the basis of proportional representation.

The Senate President shall not vote except in case of a tie (Section 18, Article VI, 1987
Constitution).

A political party must have at least two (2) elected senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission. What the
Constitution requires is that there must be at least a majority of the entire membership.
(Guingona vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992)

2. Powers

1. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of
Congress from their submission.
 2. The Commission shall rule by majority vote of its members.
3. The Commission shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman
or a majority of all its members.
4. The Commission on Appointments is independent of the two Houses of Congress. Its
employees are not, technically, employees of Congress. It has the power to promulgate
its own rules of proceedings.
5. The powers of the Commission do not come from Congress, but emanate directly from
the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact, the functions of the
Commissioner are purely executive in nature. (Cunanan vs Tan, G.R. No. L-19721, May 10,
1962)

REGULAR APPOINTMENTS – takes place when the President appoints an officer whose
appointment requires confirmation by the Commission, while Congress is in session.

AS INTERIM or RECESS APPOINTMENT – happens when Congress is not in session. Unlike

regular appointments, an ad-interim appointment made by the President is complete in itself and
effective at once, even without confirmation.

POWERS OF CONGRESS

LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS

IN AID OF LEGISLATION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS

Who may appear? Any person Department Heads
Who may be Anyone, except the President and No one. Each House may
summoned? the members of the Supreme only request the appearance
Court of the Department Heads
Subject matter Any matters for purposes of Matters related to the
pending legislation Department only
Obligatory force of Mandatory Discretionary
appearance

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT – embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance

its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. It
concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by the same. It includes the following:
1. To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives.
2. To determine whether agencies are properly administered.
3. To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty.
4. To prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority
5. To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest.

The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and
integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. It has also
been used to ensure the accountability of regulatory commissions like the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Unlike other ordinary administrative agencies, these bodies are
independent from the executive branch and are outside the executive department in the
discharge of their functions. (Makalintal vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, 2003 )

The power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its
understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly,
oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress: (a) to monitor
bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, (b) to determine whether agencies are
properly administered, (c) to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty, (d) to prevent executive
usurpation of legislative authority, and (d) to assess executive conformity with the congressional
perception of public interest. (Abakada Guro Partylist vs Purisima, GR No. 166715, August 14, 2008)

Categories of Congressional Oversight

Scrutiny – Congress may request information and report from the other branches of
government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for considerations of the agency
involved. Legislative scrutiny is based on the power of the Congress and exercised this power
thru its power of confirmation.

Congressional Investigation – This is recognized under Sec. 21, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution.
But even in the absence of an express provision in the Constitution, congressional investigation
has been held to be an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative functions.

Legislative Supervision – connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a

congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. Allows
Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to
retain part of that delegated authority. Congress exercises supervision over the executive
agencies through its veto power (Makalintal vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 157013, July 10,
2003)

Power to Conduct Question Hour

The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or
upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and
be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall
be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at
least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written
questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public
interest so requires and the President so states in writi conducted in executive session. (Sec.
22, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

The requirement for cabinet members to secure presidential consent under Sec. 1 of E.O. 464,
which is limited only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. Under Sec. 22,
Art. VI of the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is
discretionary on their part. Sec. 1, cannot be applied to appearances of department heads in
inquiries in aid of legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of
the department head to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently
made by the President or by the Executive Secretary. On the other hand, other executive
officials cannot properly refuse to testify before congressional inquiries in aid of legislation.
(Senate of the Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)

Question Hour vs. Inquiry in Aid of Legislation (Senate of the Philippines, et al., vs. Eduardo Ermita,
GR No. 169777, April 20, 2006)

INQUIRY IN AID OF QUESTION HOUR (Sec. 22)

LEGISLATION (Sec. 21)
Relates to? Relates to the power to conduct Pertains to the power to
 inquiries in aid of legislation. conduct a question hour.
Purpose To elicit information that may be To obtain information in pursuit
used for legislation. of Congress’ oversight
function.
Nature of attendance Attendance is compulsory. Attendance is discretionary.
Persons required to Any person. Only Department Heads.
attend
Who conducts? Committees Entire body
Subject matter Any matter for the purpose of Only matters related to the
legislation. Departments.
Basis Grounded on the necessity of Congress merely seeks to be
information in the legislative informed on how Department
process (the power of inquiry) Heads are implementing the
being co-extensive with the statutes which it has issued.
power to legislate.

Secs. 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not
be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. (Senate of the Philippines, et al., vs.
Eduardo Ermita, GR No. 169777, April 20, 2006)

Bicameral Conference Committee

BICAMERALISM UNICAMERALISM
Definition The practice of having two The practice of having only
legislative or parliamentary one legislative or
chambers. parliamentary chamber.
Passing of the Bill Every Bill must pass two (2) Every Bill must pass by only a
Houses of Congress to become single House of Congress to
a law. become a law.
Organization There is an Upper House that Simplicity of organization
looks at problems which form resulting in economy and
the national perspective and, efficiency.
thus, serves as a check on the
parochial tendency of a body
elected by District.
Legislation Allows for a more careful studyFacility in pinpointing
of legislation. responsibility for legislation,
avoidance of duplication, and
strengthening of the
Legislature in relation to the
Executive.
Vulnerability Less vulnerable to attempts of Drawing from the recent
the Executive to control the experience with People power,
Legislature. there is greater
responsiveness to the needs
of the masses because the
Representatives are forced to
interact more intensely with
their limited and clearly
identifiable constituencies.
A bill can be passed jointly or separately. The former is done by a joint session, while the latter
is passed simultaneously (when a bill is taken up by both Houses separately but at the same
time), or sequentially (when a bill originates from one house and goes to the other house). If
passed separately, the bill approved by one house goes to the other House, which can amend
such bill. Once the other House approves the bill, this is called the other House’s version of the
bill.

A Conference Committee is then organized, composed of equal number of members from the
Senate and the House, to make recommendations of the bill. The respective members are
usually granted blanket authority to negotiate and reconcile the bills.

Under the congressional rules of procedure, conference committees are not expected to make
any material change in the measure at issue, either by deleting provisions to which both houses
have already agreed or by inserting new provisions. But this is a difficult provision to enforce.
Note the problem when one house amends a proposal originating in either house by striking out
everything following the enacting clause and substituting provisions which make it an entirely
new bill. The versions are now altogether different, permitting a conference committee to draft
essentially a new bill.

At the end of the process, the Committee comes up with a “Conference Committee Report”
which is then submitted to the respective Houses for approval.

A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be limited to
resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even where the conference
committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom
with which new subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a
conference committee produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These
excursions occur even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference committee.” (Philippine
Judges Association vs. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993)

The result is a third version, which is considered an “amendment in the nature of a substitute,”
the only requirement for which being that the third version be germane to the subject of the
House and Senate bills (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 1154545, August 25, 1994).

NON-LEGISLATIVE

INFORMING FUNCTION – The power of Congress, when it investigates, is either in aid of

legislation or by way of oversight. What appear to have been forgotten is an equally important
and fundamental power and duty of Congress and that is its informing function by way of
investigating for the purpose of enlightening the electorate.” (Akbayan Citizens Action Party,
Pambansang Kati-Punan Ng Mga Samahan Sa Kanayunan, et al. vs. Thomas G. Aquino, et al., G.R. No.
170516, July 16, 2008)

The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and
integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government. In his
Consideration of Representative Government, John Stuart Mill wrote that the duty of the
legislature is "to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to
compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers objectionable;
and to censure them if found condemnable." Moreover, Woodrow Wilson opined that the
legislature’s informing function should be preferred to its legislative function. Wilson emphasized
that "Even more important than legislation is the instruction and guidance in political affairs
which the people might receive from a body which kept all national concerns suffused in a broad
daylight of discussion." (Separate Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July
10, 2003)

POWER OF IMPEACHMENT

The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. (Section
2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)

IMPEACHMENT – the power of the Congress to remove a public official for serious crimes or
misconduct as provided in the Constitution. (Corona vs. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 200242,
July 17, 2012)

Process of Impeachment

The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment, while the Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment.
(1) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof,
which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the
proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by
a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session
days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be
calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(2) A vote of at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override
its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(3) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all
the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial
by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. (Sec. 3, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)
(4)No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once
within a period of one year. (Sec. 3 [5], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

Officials Who May Be Removed by Impeachment

1. President;
2. Vice President;
3. Justices of the Supreme Court;
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions; and
5. Ombudsman

The enumeration in the Constitution of the impeachable officers is exclusive. The Ombudsman
is only one man, not including his Deputies. (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, GR No.
146486, March 4, 2005)
Grounds for Impeachment

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution

2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Graft and Corruption
5. Other High Crimes
6. Betrayal of Public Trust

JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDEPOSTS

From the records of the Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae briefs of two former
Constitutional Commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term “to initiate” refers to the filing of
the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint.
(Francisco vs House of Representatives, G.R. No 160261, November 10, 2003)

The ‘initiation’ takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment
complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the
members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary-General of the House (Gutierrez
vs. House Committee on Justice, G.R. 193459, February 15, 2011)

Other Non-Legislative Powers

1. Act as Board Canvasser in election of President (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. Congress may validly delegate the initial determination of the authenticity & due
execution of the certificates of canvass to a joint congressional committee, composed of
members of the House of Representative & of the Senate.
3. Declare existence of a State of War (Sec. 23, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
4. By Virtue of 2/3 of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, declare
the existence of a State of war.
5. Delegation of Emergency Powers (Sec. 23, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
6. Call special election for President and Vice President (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
7. Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
8. Propose constitutional amendments constituent power (Secs. 1 and 2, Art. XVIII, 1987
Constitution)
9. Confirm certain appointments
10. Decide disability of the President because majority of the Cabinet dispute his assertion
that he is able to discharge his duties (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
11. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or naval captain and up;
12. Other ministers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution;
13. Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions; and
14. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council.

The list is exclusive; it may not be expanded by statutory legislation. (Sarmiento vs. Mison, G.R.
No. 79974, December 17, 1987)
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

INITIATIVE – the power of the people to propose amendments to the constitution, or to propose
and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose. (R.A. No. 6735, Sec. 3, par. (a))

Three Systems of Initiative

1. Initiative on the Constitution – a petition proposing amendments to the constitution;
2. Initiative on statutes – a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and
3. Initiative on local legislation – a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal or barangay law, resolution, or ordinance.

Local Initiative

Not less than two thousand (2,000) registered voters in case of autonomous regions, one
thousand (1,000) in case of provinces and cities, one hundred (100) in case of municipalities,
and fifty (50) in case of barangays, may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local
legislative body, respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any
law, ordinance or resolution. (R.A. No. 6735, Sec. 13)

Limitations on Local Initiative

1. Shall not be exercised for more than once a year;

2. Shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the local
legislative bodies to enact; and
3. If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall adopt in toto the
proposition presented, the initiative shall be cancelled. However, those against such
action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative. (R.A. No. 6735, Sec. 15)

Limitation on Local Legislative Body vis-à-vis Local Initiative

Any proposition or ordinance approved through the system of initiative and referendum as
herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or amended by the sanggunian concerned
within six (6) months from the date of the approval thereof, and may be amended, modified or
repealed by the sanggunian within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of
all its members: In case of barangays, the period shall be eighteen (18) months after the
approval thereof. (LGC, Sec. 125)

REFERENDUM – the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election
called for that purpose.

Two Classes of Referendum

1. Referendum on statutes – a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof,
passed by Congress.
2. Referendum on local laws – a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

Q: Is the power of to hold a referendum plenary?

A: No, the following cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition: (a) No petition
embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate; and (b) Statutes involving
emergency measures, the enactment of which is specifically vested in Congress by the
Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until 90 days after their effectivity. (Sec. 10, RA
6735)

Distinguish Initiative from Referendum

Initiative Referendum
Definition
Power of the people to propose bills and The right reserved to the people to
laws, and to enact or reject them at the adopt or reject any act or measure
polls independent of the legislative which has been passed by a
assembly. legislative body and which in most
cases would without action on the
part of electors become a law.
As to who proposes legislation
Entirely the work of the electorate. It is Begun and consented to by the law-
the process of law-making by the people making body. It consists merely of the
themselves without the participation and electorate approving or rejecting what
against the wishes of their elected has been drawn up or enacted by a
representatives. legislative body.
(SBMA vs Comelec, G.R. 125416, September 26, 1996)

In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and supervision of the
process itself, akin to its powers over the conduct of elections. These law-making powers
belong to the people, hence the Comelec cannot control or change the substance or the content
of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it should have done so already) issue
relevant and adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of these "people-power"
features of our Constitution. (SBMA vs Comelec, G.R. 125416, September 26, 1996)

EXECUTIVE DEPARMENT

QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, AND TERM OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT

Qualifications of the President and the Vice-President

1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 40 years of age on the day of the election;
3. Able to read and write;
4. Registered voter; and
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding such election. (Sec.
4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

Term of Office
1. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term
of 6 years. (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
2. The President shall NOT be eligible for any re-election. No person who succeeds as
President and has served as such for more than 4 years shall be qualified for election to the
same office at any time. (Sec. 4, par. (1), Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
3. No Vice-President shall serve for more than 2 consecutive terms. (Sec. 3, par. (2), Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)

ELECTION
Regular- 2nd Monday of May, every 6 years (Sec. 4, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Special-Requisites:
1. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and
the Vic-President;
2. If the vacancies occur more than 18 months before the next regular presidential election;
and
3. A law passed by Congress calling for a special election to elect a President and Vice-
President to be held earlier than 45 days not later than 60 days from the time of such
call. (Sec. 10, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

OATH OF OFFICE
Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, Vice-President or the Acting
President shall take oath or affirmation. (Sec. 5, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

Oath
An outward pledge made under an immediate sense of responsibility to God.
The oath is not a source of substantive power but is merely intended to deepen the sense of
responsibility of the responsibility of the President and ensure a mere conscientious discharge
of his office.

Affirmation
A solemn declaration in place of an oath, if the President, Vice-President or Acting President
does not believe in God.

PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS, AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

1. Presidential Immunity
Rationale for the immunity is to assure exercise of presidential duties and functions free
from any hindrance or distraction considering that it is a job that requires the Chief
Executive’s time as well as undivided attention. (Soliven vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585,
November 14, 1988)
2. While the President is immune from suit, she may not be prevented from instituting it.
However, such privilege may be waived solely on the President’s prerogative. (Soliven vs.
Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988)
3. A non-seating President cannot enjoy immunity from suit for criminal acts committed
during his incumbency. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
4. The questioned act of the alter-ego is not the act of the President. Furthermore,
presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts where there is a grave abuse
of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. (Gloria vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000)
5. The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any
civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It
will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he
be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully
attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and
judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his
usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him
by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. (Rubrico vs
Arroyo, GR No. 183871, Feb 18, 2010)

2. Presidential Privilege
 1. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-
President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their
tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. (Sec. 6, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)
2. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information
and not to categories of persons—it attaches to the information and not the person. Only
the President (and the Executive Secretary, by order of the President) can invoke the
privilege. (Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006)
3. The following are the requisites for validity of claim needed to be complied with in order
for the claim to executive privilege to be valid. These are: — (1) Quintessential and non-
delegable presidential power- power subject of the legislative inquiry must be expressly
granted by the Constitution to the President, e.g commander-in-chief, appointing,
pardoning, and diplomatic powers; (2) Operational Proximity Test: it must be authored,
solicited, and received by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The
judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President (i.e.
officials who stand proximate to the President, not only by reason of their function, but
also by reason of their positions in the Executive’s organizational structure); (3) No
adequate need: The privilege may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such
that the information sought “likely contains important evidence,” and by the unavailability
of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. (Neri vs. Senate,
G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008)

Presidential Prohibitions/Inhibitions (Secs. 6 & 13, Art VII, 1987 Constitution)

1. He shall not receive any other emolument from the government or any other source.
2. Unless otherwise provided by the condition, shall not hold any other office or
employment.
3. The Vice President may be appointed as a member of the cabinet, without confirmation
from the Commission on Appointment; the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member
of the Judicial and Bar Council.
4. This prohibition must not be construed as applying to 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 officials’ office.

POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

1. General Executive and Administrative Powers

The power to enforce and administer laws.
Vested in the President of the Philippines. (Sec. 1, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

The Faithful Execution (Take Care) Clause

The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that laws be faithfully executed. (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
The administrative head of the government, the President is vested with the power to execute,
administer and carry out laws into practical operation. Impressed upon us, then, is the fact that
executive power is the power of carrying out the laws into practical operation and enforcing their
due observance. Under Section 17, Article VII, the President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices (Power of Control). He shall ensure that the laws
be faithfully executed.
2. Power of Appointment

a. In general
APPOINTMENT – the unequivocal act of designating or selecting by one having the authority
therefore of an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust.
(Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 131429, August 4, 1999)

The power to appoint is an executive function, legislature may not usurp this function. The
appointing authority of the president however, should not be confused with the authority of the
legislature to impose additional duties on existing offices. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines A Commentary, 1987)

b. Limitations
The President may not appoint his spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, as Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or -controlled corporations

Appointments extended by an acting President shall remain effective unless revoked by the
elected President within ninety (90) days from his assumption of Office (Sec. 14, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)

Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or acting President shall not make appointments except temporary appointment to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety (Sec. 15, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

The presidential power of appointment may also be limited by Congress through its power to
prescribe qualifications for public office; and the judiciary may annul an appointment made by
the President if the appointee is not qualified or has not been validly confirmed. (Nachura,
Outline Review on Political Law, 2016)

c. Types of Appointment

i. Permanent and Temporary

On one hand, Permanent Appointment is extended to persons possessing the requisite
eligibilities. It has security of tenure. Some positions require Commission on Appointment’s
confirmation. On the other hand, Temporary Appointment is given to person without eligibility. It
is revocable at will and without the necessity of just cause or valid investigation. It is not subject
to Commission on Appointment’s confirmation.

APPOINTMENT – the selection by the authority vested with the power of an individual who is to
exercise the functions of a given office

DESIGNATION – an indication of nomenclature to the appointive position. It may be an

imposition of (additional) duties, usually by law, on a person already in the public service.

Appointments solely by the President (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.
Designation: The President may designate an officer already in the government service or any
other competent person to perform the functions of any office in the executive branch, when: (a)
The officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to fulfill his duties by reason of illness,
absence, or any other cause; or (b) There exists a vacancy. (Sec. 17, Book III, Administrative
Code of 1987). In no case shall designation exceed one (1) year.

Regular Appointment vs Ad-Interim or Recess Appointment

Ad interim Appointment Regular Appointment
Nature
It is an appointment made by the It is an appointment made by the
President while Congress is NOT in President while Congress is in session
session or during recess (General vs. (General vs. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, March
Urro, G.R. No. 191560, March 29, 2011) 29, 2011)
Confirmation
Made before confirmation of
CA. Made after nomination is confirmed by
(Matibag vs Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, CA
April 2, 2002)
Effectivity
Shall cease to be valid if disapproved Once confirmed by CA, it continues
by CA or upon next adjournment of until the end of the term of the
Congress (Matibag vs Benipayo, G.R. No. appointee
149036, April 2, 2002)

Modes of terminating ad-interim appointments:

1. Disapproval by the Commission on Appointments;
2. Adjournment of Congress prior to Commission action on appointment.

Commission on Appointments’ Confirmation

1. With the consent of the Commission on Appointment
a. Heads of executive departments;
b. Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls;
c. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or naval captain and up;
d. Other ministers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution;
e. Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions; and
f. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council.

NOTE: The list is exclusive; it may not be expanded by statutory legislation. (Sarmiento vs. Mison,
G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987)

Prior recommendation or nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council

Members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts (Sec. 9, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution);
Ombudsman and his 5 deputies.

Requiring nominations by multi-sectoral groups

Regional consultative commission (Sec. 18, Art. X, 1987 Constitution)

Party-list representatives, before the Party-list Law (Sec. 7, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution)

Appointment of Vice President as member of the Cabinet;

Appointment solely by the President.

a. Those vested by the Constitution on the President alone;

b. Those whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;
c. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint;
d. Those other officers lower in rank whose appointment is vested by law in the President
alone. (Sec. 16, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

Appointing Procedure for those that Need CA Confirmation

a. Nomination by the President

b. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
c. Issuance of commission
d. Acceptance by appointee

An appointment is deemed complete only upon its acceptance. Pending such acceptance,
which is optional to the appointee, the appointment may still be validly withdrawn. Appointment
to public office cannot be forced upon any citizen except for purposes of the defense of the
State under Article II. (Lacson vs. Romero, 84 Phil 740, October 14, 1949)

Generally, the power to appoint vested in the President includes the power to make temporary
appointments, unless he is otherwise specifically prohibited by the Constitution or by the law, or
where an acting appointment is repugnant to the nature of the office involved. (Cabiling vs.
Pabualan, G.R. Nos. L-21764 and L-21765, May 31, 1965)

Midnight Appointment

During the period stated in Sec. 15, Art. VII of the Constitution, which is two months immediately
before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, the President is neither
required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so.

GENERAL RULE: Midnight appointments are prohibited.

EXCEPTIONS: Midnight appointments may still be made under the following conditions:

They are temporary appointments to executive positions; and

The continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

During this period, the President is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor
allowed to do so. Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the President is required
by law to fill up vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein, unless
prohibited by Sec. 15 of Article VII. While the filing up of vacancies in the judiciary is
undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no showing in this case of any compelling reason to
justify the making of the appointments during the period of the ban. (In Re: Mateo Valenzuela, AM
No. 98-01-SC, November 9, 1998)

Prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments

The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not
apply to appointments made by local chief executives. Nevertheless, the Civil Service
Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to professionalize the civil
service. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief executives from making
appointments during the last days of their tenure. Appointments of local chief executives must
conform to these civil service rules and regulations in order to be valid. (Provincial Government of
Aurora vs. Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015)

The prohibition on midnight appointments does not apply to members of the Supreme
Court

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. (De Castro vs JBC, G.R.
No. 191002, April 20, 2010)

The ruling in De Castro granted the authority to then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to
appoint former Chief Justice Corona as successor of retired Chief Justice Puno.

Power of Removal

The President cannot remove officials appointed by him where the Constitution prescribes
certain methods for separation of such officers from public service (i.e. Constitutional
Commissioners).

Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose continuity in office depends upon the pleasure
of the President may be replaced at any time, but legally speaking, their separation is effected
not by removal but by expiration of term. (Alajar vs. Alba, G.R. Nos. L-10360 and L-10433, January
17, 1957)

Power of control and supervision

The power of control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for
that of the latter. The 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 himself. (Mondano vs. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955)

On the other hand, the power of supervision means “overseeing or the authority of an officer to
see to it that the subordinate officers perform their duties. If the subordinate officers fail or
neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to
make them perform their duties.

Essentially, the power of supervision means no more than the power of ensuring that laws are
faithfully executed, or that subordinate officers act within the law. The supervisor of
superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he does not lay down the rules,
nor does he have discretion to modify or replace them. (Ambil, Jr., vs SB, G.R. No. 175457, July 6,
2011)

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter-Ego Principle)

Recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all executive 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 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 department performed and promulgated in the regular course of business
are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively acts of the Chief
Executive. (DENR vs. DENR Region XII Employees, GR No. 149724, August 19, 2003)

In Constantino vs. Cuisia, the Court upheld the authority of the Secretary of Finance to execute
debt-relief contracts. The authority emanates from the power of the President to contract foreign
loans under Section 20, Article VII of the Constitution.

In Angeles vs. Gaite, the Court ruled that there can be no issue with regard to the President’s
act of limiting his power to review decisions and orders of the Secretary of Justice, especially
since the decision or order was issued by the secretary, the President’s “own alter ego.”

Executive Departments and Offices

CONTROL – power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
(Mondano vs Silvosa, G.R. No. L-7708, May 30, 1955)

The Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) does not fall under the Legislative or judicial
branches of the government. The CCP is also not one of the independent constitutional bodies.
Neither is the CCP a quasi-judicial body nor a local government unit. Thus, the CCP must fall
under the Executive branch. Under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, any agency “not
placed by law or order creating them under any specific department” falls under the Office of the
President.” Since the President exercises control over all the “executive departments, bureaus,
and offices,” the President necessarily exercises control over the CCP which is an office in the
Executive Department. (Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006)

Extent of the Power of Control

The power of control of the President may extend to the power to investigate, suspend or
remove officers and employees who belong to the executive branch if they are presidential
appointees or do NOT belong to the classified service for such can be justified under the
principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint. (Ang-Angco vs. Castillo,
G.R. No. L-17169, November 30, 1963)

N.B.: GOCCs are placed under the control of the executive when their functions “partake of the
nature of government bureaus or offices.”

SUPERVISION - power of the superior interest to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.

Supervision means “overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate
officers perform their duties and to take such action as prescribed by law to compel his
subordinates to perform his duties. (Mondano vs. Silvosa, et al., G.R. No. 7708, May 30, 1955)

Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior
body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body. (Taule vs. Santos, G.R. No.
90336, August 12, 1991)
Local government units

The Constitution vests the President with the power of supervision, not control, over local
government units (LGUs). Such power enables him to see to it that LGUs and their officials
execute their tasks in accordance with law. While he may issue advisories and seek their
cooperation in solving economic difficulties, he cannot prevent them from performing their tasks
and using available resources to achieve their goals. He may not withhold or alter any authority
or power given them by the law. (Pimentel vs. Aguirre, G.R. 132988, July 19, 2000)

The Office of the President is without any power to remove elected officials, since the power is
exclusively vested in the proper courts as expressly provided for in the last paragraph of Section
60 of the Local Government Code. It further invalidated Article 125, Rule XIX of the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. (Pablico vs. Villapando, G. R. No.
147870, July 31, 2002).

Emergency Powers

In times of war or other national emergency, the 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 out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. (Sec.
23 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Emergency powers are self-liquidating unless sooner withdrawn. They will automatically cease
upon the end of the emergency that justified their delegation.

Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency powers. Certainly, a body cannot delegate
a power not reposed upon it. However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be
possible or practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its powers, the Framers of our
Constitution deemed it wise to allow Congress to grant emergency powers to the President,
subject to certain conditions, thus:

a. There must be a war or other emergency.

b. The delegation must be for a limited period only.
c. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe.
d. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by
Congress. (David vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006)

Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect of the emergency powers clause. The
taking over of private business affected with public interest is just another facet of the
emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. Thus, whether or not the President may
exercise such power is dependent on whether Congress may delegate it to him pursuant to a
law prescribing the reasonable terms thereof. (David vs. Arroyo, supra.)

Examples of other national emergencies:

a) Rebellion
b) Economic crisis
c) Pestilence or epidemic
d) Typhoon
e) Flood
f) Other similar catastrophe of nation-wide proportions. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 163)

President’s authority to declare a state of national emergency vs. President’s authority to

exercise emergency powers

Basis Declare a State of National Exercise Emergency Powers

Emergency
Source of Authority Granted by the Constitution, no Requires delegation from
legitimate objection can be Congress. (David vs. GMA
raised. G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006)

Commander-in-Chief Powers (Military Powers)

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF CLAUSE: 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. (Sec. 18, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)

POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Calling-Out Power – to call-out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion, or rebellion.

It is only the President, as Executive, who is authorized to exercise emergency powers as

provided under Section 23, Article VI, of the Constitution. The power to declare a state of martial
law is subject to the Supreme Court’s authority to review the factual basis thereof. By
constitutional fiat, the calling-out powers, which is of lesser gravity than the power to declare
martial law, is bestowed upon the President alone. (Kulayan vs Abdusakur, G.R. No. 187298, July 3
,2012)

The Calling-Out Power is the most benign of all powers and is solely discretionary on the part of
the President. Courts may only examine whether it is exercised within permissible constitutional
limits. Unlike in the powers to suspend the writ or to declare martial law, there is no provision in
the Constitution which allows Congress to revoke or the Supreme Court to review the sufficient
of the factual basis thereof. (Integrated Bar of the Philippines vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15,
2000)

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 mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or
violate constitutionally protected rights. Indeed, if a state of martial law does not suspend the
operation of the Constitution or automatically suspend the privilege of the writ habeas corpus,
then it is with more reason that a simple declaration of a state of rebellion could not bring about
these conditions. (Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004)

The Court finds G.O. No. 5 valid. It is an Order issued by the President – acting as Commander-
in-Chief- addressed to subalterns in the AFP to carry out the provisions of PP 1017,
Significantly, it also provides a valid standard – that the military and the police should take only
the “necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent acts of lawless
violence.” But the words “acts of terrorism” found in G.O. No. 5 have not been legally defined
and made punishable by Congress and should thus be deemed deleted from the said G.O.
While “terrorism” has been denounced generally in media, no law has been enacted to guide
the military, and eventually the courts, to determine the limits of the AFP’s authority in carrying
out this portion of G.O. No. 5. (David vs. Arroyo, GR No. 171390, May 3, 2006)

The Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out the armed forces to
prevent and suppress lawless violence to the President. Unless it is shown that such
determination was attended by grave abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
President’s judgment. The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily
quantifiable and cannot be objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the
same is a combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides
the absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, information
necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts . (Ampatuan
vs Puno G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011)

Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

In case 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. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least
a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for
a period to be determined by the Congress if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public
safety requires its. (Sec. 18, Article VII, 1987 Constitution).

Applies only to persons “judicially charged” for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with the invasion or rebellion.

Requisites:

1. There must be an invasion or rebellion;

2. The public safety requires the suspension.

Declaration of martial law

Founded upon the principle that the state has the right to protect itself against those who would
destroy it and has therefore been linked to the right of the individual to self-defense. It is invoked
as an extreme measure, and rests upon the basic principle that every state has the power of
self-preservation, a power inherent in all states, because neither the state nor society would
exist without it. (Separate opinion of Justice Castro in Aquino vs Ponce Enrile, G.R. No.L-35546
September 17, 1974)

Requisites:

1. There must be an invasion or rebellion;

2. Public safety requires the proclamation of martial law all over the Philippines or any part
thereof.

Limitations on the Military Powers of the President

 1. He may call out the armed forces only in cases when it becomes necessary to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
2. The grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
proclamation of martial law are limited only to invasion or rebellion when the public
safety requires it.
3. The duration of such suspension or proclamation shall not exceed 60 days following
which it shall be automatically lifted.
4. Within 48 hours after such suspension or proclamation, the President shall personally or
in writing, report his action to Congress. If not in session, Congress must convene within
24 hours without need of a call.
5. The Congress may then, by majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke the
action of the President.
6. The revocation may not be set aside by the President.
7. By majority vote of all its members voting jointly, the Congress may, upon initiative of the
President, extend his suspension of proclamation for a period to be determined by
Congress in the invasion or rebellion shall continue and public safety requires the
extension.
8. The action of the President and the Congress shall be subject to review by the Supreme
Court which shall have the authority to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of
such action (proclamation of martial law, suspension of the privilege of the writ, or
extension thereof). This matter is no longer considered a political question and may be
raised in an appropriate proceeding by any citizen. Moreover, the Supreme Court must
decide the challenge within 30 days from the time it is filed.
9. Martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
the operation of the Constitution. The civil courts and the legislative bodies shall remain
open; Military courts and agencies are not conferred jurisdiction over civilians.
10. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons
facing charges of rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
11. Any person arrested for such offenses must be judicially charged within 3 days.
Otherwise, he shall be released.

Role of Congress when the President declares martial law or suspends the privilege of
the writ:

1. When the President proclaims martial law or suspends the privilege of the writ, such
proclamation or suspension shall be effective for a period of 60 days, unless sooner
revoked by the Congress.
2. Upon such proclamation or suspension, Congress shall convene at once. If it is not in
session, it shall convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call within 24
hours following the proclamation or suspension.
3. Within 48 hours from the proclamation or the suspension, the President shall submit a
report, in person or in writing, to the Congress (meeting in joint session of the action he
has taken).
4. The Congress shall then vote jointly, by an absolute majority. Either:

To revoke such proclamation or suspension. NOTE: When it so revokes, the President

cannot set aside (or veto) the revocation as he normally would do in the case of bills. If
Congress does not do anything, the measure will expire anyway in 60 days. So the
revocation must be made before the lapse of 60 days from the date the measure was
taken.
 To extend it beyond the 60-day period of its validity. NOTE: Congress can only so
extend the proclamation or suspension upon the initiative of the President. The period
need not be 60 days; it could be more, as Congress would determine, based on the
persistence of the emergency. If Congress fails to act before the measure expires, it can
no longer extend it until the President again re-declares the measure.

While the Constitution does not specify the number of times that the Congress is allowed
to approve an extension of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, Section 18, Article VII is clear that the only limitations to the exercise
of the congressional authority to extend such proclamation or suspension are that the
extension should be upon the President's initiative; that it should be grounded on the
persistence of the invasion or rebellion and the demands of public safety; and that it is
subject to the Court's review of the sufficiency of its factual basis upon the petition of any
citizen. (Lagman vs Pimentel, G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018)

Nor is the Congress is not constitutionally mandated to convene in joint session except
to vote jointly to revoke the President's declaration or suspension. (Padilla vs Congress,
G.R. No. 231671, July 25, 2017)

Role of the Supreme Court in declaration of martial law or suspension of writ of habeas
corpus: The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filled by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of (a) the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ, or (b) the extension thereof. It must promulgate
its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. (Sec. 18 par. 3, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)

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 vs Macapagal, G.R. No.
190293, March 20, 2012)

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. (Id.)

Executive Clemency power

Nature

There are certain presidential powers which arise out of exceptional circumstances, and if
exercised, would involve the suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the
supersedence of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of
government. The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and
the exercise of the pardoning power, notwithstanding the judicial determination of guilt of the
accused, all fall within this special class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of
the constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means exclusive, but there must be a
showing that the executive power in question is of similar gravitas and exceptional import.
(Angeles vs. Gaite G.R. No. 176596 March 23, 2011)
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE

1. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment owing to its political nature

2. Cannot be granted in cases of violations of election laws without favorable
recommendation from the Commission on Elections (Sec. 5, Art. IX-C, 1987
Constitution)
3. Can be granted only after conviction
4. Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt
5. Cannot absolve the convict of civil liability
6. Cannot restore public offices forfeited

Forms of Executive Clemency

1. Commutation – reduction or mitigation of the penalty; remission of a part of the

punishment; substitution of less penalty than the one imposed. (People vs. Vera, G.R. No.
45685 November 16, 1937)
2. Amnesty – commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other high
political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of
another, who have offended, by some breach, the law of nations . (Magdalo vs. Comelec,
G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012)
3. Reprieves – withholding of a sentence for an interval of time; a postponement of the
execution. (People vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45685 November 16, 1937)
4. Remission of fines and forfeitures– prevents the collection of fines or the confiscation of
forfeited property and it cannot have the effect of returning properly which has been
vested in third parties or money on the public treasury.
5. Pardon – act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the
punishment which the law inflicts for the crime he has committed. (US vs. Wilson, G.R. No.
90-1745, March 24, 1992)

Pardon vs. Amnesty

PARDON AMNESTY
Presidential Act Private act of the President Public act of the President that
upon which there can be no courts may take judicial notice
judicial scrutiny. of.
Granting Granted to one after conviction.
Granted to classes of persons
or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses,
before the institution of
criminal prosecution or
sometimes after conviction.
Concurrence by the No need for the concurrence of Need the concurrence of the
Congress the Congress. Congress.
Acceptance Acceptance is necessary. No need for act of acceptance.
Offense Generally granted for common Addresses to political offenses.
crimes.
Effect Looks forward and relieve the Looks backward and abolishes
offender from the consequences and puts into oblivion the
of an offense of which he has offense itself, as if no offense
been convicted. was committed.
Pardon vs. Probation (People vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45685 November 16, 1937)

PARDON PROBATION
Who Grants? Granted by the President after
Granted by the courts upon
final conviction of the accused.
due application.
Effect Offender is relieved of the Offender is not entirely
sentence. relieved of the sentence which
the law inflicts but placed
under the legal custody of the
probation officer.
Offense Any act, except in cases of Penalty of the offense must not
impeachment or violation of exceed six (6) years and one
election laws. (1) day imprisonment.

Kinds of Pardon

1. Absolute – one extended without any strings attached. This may not be rejected by the
pardonee.
2. Conditional – one under which the convict is required to comply with certain
requirements. The offender has the right to reject it since the conditions imposed may be
more onerous than the penalty sought to be remitted.
3. Plenary – extinguished all the penalties imposed upon the offender, including accessory
disabilities.
4. Partial – does not extinguish all the penalties.

Limitations on the Exercise of the Power of Executive Clemency:

1. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws,

rules and regulations, shall be granted by the President without the favorable
recommendation of the COMELEC. (Sec. 5 Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution)
2. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment. (Sec. 19 Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
3. Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment. (Sec. 19 Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)
4. Cannot be granted in case of legislative contempt, or civil contempt. (Cruz, supra at 445)
5. Cannot absolve the convict of civil liability. (Id.)
6. Cannot restore public office forfeited. (Monsanto vs Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78239,
February 9, 1989)
7. A grant of amnesty must be made with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of Congress (Article VII, Section 19)

Sanctions for violation of Conditional Pardons

Arrest
Re-incarceration

The President can grant executive clemency in administrative cases, in the Executive Branch,
but NOT in the Judicial or Legislative branches of the government. (Llamas vs. Orbos, G.R. No.
99031, October 15, 1991)

The constitutional provision granting the President the power to grant reprieves cannot be
interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after
their finality. For instance, a convict who becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be
executed while in a state of insanity. The suspension of such a death sentence is an exercise of
judicial power. (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96, January 19, 1999)

The “conviction by final judgment” limitation under Sec. 19, Art. VII of the Constitution prohibits
the grant of pardon whether full or conditional, to an accused during the pendency of his appeal
from his conviction by the trial court. Any application therefor, if one is made, should not be
acted upon or the process toward its grant should not be begun unless the appeal is withdrawn.
Accordingly, the agencies or instrumentalities of the Government concerned must require proof
from the accused that he has not appealed from his conviction or that he has withdrawn his
appeal. (People of the Philippines vs. Casido, G.R. No. 116512, March 7, 1997)

Doctrine of Non-Diminution or Non-Impairment of the President’s Power of Pardon

Any act of Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the
President. (Risos-Vidal vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015)

Diplomatic power

No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate. (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)

Treaties vs. Executive Agreements

TREATIES EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

Binding effect Formal documents, which Become binding through
require ratification with the executive action without need
approval of 2/3 of the Senate. of a vote by the Senate or
Congress.
Nature International agreements, International agreements
involving political issues or embodying adjustments of
changes of national policy, and detail carrying out well
those involving international established national policies
arrangements of a permanent and traditions and those
character. involving arrangements of a
more or less temporary nature.

The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence, to the ratification [of the treaty]. 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. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a
serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the
President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. (Pimentel,
Jr., et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al., GR No. 158088, July 6, 2005)

Other Foreign Affairs Powers

The power to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

The power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers duly accredited to the Philippines.
Power of deportation although the Legislature may limit the substantive grounds for such.
In Bagong Alyansang Makabayan vs. Zamora (G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000), the
Supreme Court treated the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an agreement which defines the
treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting in the Philippines, as a treaty which
required the concurrence of the Senate. In this respect, as a treaty, the Philippines was bound
to comply with it in keeping with the principles of international law.

Powers relative to appropriation measures (Budgetary Power)

The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every regular
session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of
financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. (Sec. 22, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)

The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations is
lodged in the Congress. (Philippine Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19,
1994)

No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations. [Sec. 25 (5), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]

POWER OF AUGMENTATION

The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid under Section 25(5), supra, must be made upon
a concurrence of the following requisites, namely:

(1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds within their respective offices;

(2) The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the appropriations for their
respective offices; and

(3) The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices. (Araullo vs. Aquino III, G.R. No. 1209287, July 1, 2014)

Delegated Powers – Powers of the President by way of delegation from Congress

Delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through
the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. A
further delegation of such power, unless permitted by the sovereign power, would constitute a
negation of this duty in violation of the trust reposed in the delegate mandated to discharge it
directly.

Emergency powers [Sec. 23 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]

Tariff powers

The 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 wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national
development program of the Government. [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution]

Residual Powers – Powers of the President not limited to those set forth in the Constitution

The power involved is the President’s residual power to protect the general welfare of the
people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. It is not only the
power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the
laws that the needs of the nation demand. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary
powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of
maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquillity in times when no foreign foe
appears on the horizon. (Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989)

Veto Powers

The President’s veto power was granted under Sec. 27 (1), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Generally, when a President disapproves a bill, he exhibits such disapproval by executing a
veto to invalidate the whole law. The power must generally be exercised in its entirety.

However, the President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he
does not object. (Sec. 27 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)

Under his general veto power, the President has to veto the entire bill, not merely parts thereof.
The exception to the general veto power is the power given to the President to veto any
particular item or items in a general appropriations bill. (Phil. Constitution Association vs.
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)

A general appropriations bill is a special type of legislation, whose content is limited to specified
sums of money dedicated to a specific purpose or a separate fiscal unit (Beckman, The Item
Veto Power of the Executive, 31 Temple Law Quarterly 27 [1957])

As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can include in an appropriations
bill must "relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it relates," it follows that any provision which does not
relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is
considered "an inappropriate provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. (PCA vs
Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994)

Legislative control cannot be exercised in such a manner as to encumber the general

appropriation bill with veto-proof ‘logrolling measure,’ special interest provisions which could not
succeed if separately enacted, or ‘riders,’ substantive pieces of legislation incorporated in a bill
to insure passage without veto. (Gonzales vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636. November 19, 1990)

RULES OF SUCCESSION

1. Vacancy at the beginning of the term

 a. In case of death or permanent disability of the President-elect: The Vice President elect
shall become President.

b. If the President-elect fails to qualify: The Vice President-elect shall act as President until
a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

c. If a President shall not have been chosen: The Vice-President-elect shall act as
President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

d. If no President and Vice President were chosen nor shall have qualified, or both shall
have died or become permanently disabled: The President of the Senate or, in case of
his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a
President or Vice President shall have been chosen or qualified.

e. In the event of inability of the official mentioned, Congress shall, by law, provide for the
manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a
Vice President shall have qualified.

2. Vacancy During the Term

Instances on Presidential Succession (where the President is not merely Acting-President)

a. Death
b. Permanent Disability
c. Removal from office

NOTE: The President can only be removed by means of impeachment (Section 2, Article XI,
1987 Constitution).

Resignation

Elements

1. There must be intent to resign; and

2. It must be coupled with acts of relinquishment (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
15, March 2, 2001)
3. The validity of resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can
be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation
is clear, it must be given legal effect. (Estrada vs. Desierto, supra.)

TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST AND CONSTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION (Estrada vs.

Desierto, supra.)

Estrada did not write any formal letter of resignation before leaving Malacañang. His resignation
has to be determined from his acts and omissions, before, during and after January 20, 2001, or
by the totality of prior contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing
a material relevance on the issue. And using the totality test, the President resigned. It was
confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the press release containing his final statement:
 a. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President of the Republic albeit
with reservation about its legality;
b. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace the seat of the presidency for the sake of
peace and in order to begin the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was
leaving the Palace due to any kind inability and that he was going to re-assume the
presidency as soon as the disability disappears;
c. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them. Without
doubt, he was referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the people as
President;
d. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the
same service of our country. Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after
occupying the office of the President which he has given up; and
e. He called on his supporters to join him in the promotion of a constructive national spirit of
reconciliation and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of conciliation and solidarity
could not be attained if he did not give up the presidency.

The press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final act of farewell. His presidency is now in
the past tense. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
President, the Vice President shall become the President.

3. Temporary disability

Ways by which the inability of the President to discharge functions may be made known or
determined:

a. By a written declaration made by the President himself as to his inability.

b. By a written declaration by the Cabinet that the President is unable to discharge the
functions of his office.
c. In the event of disagreement between the President and the Cabinet, by a finding of
Congress by 2/3 vote that the President is disabled.

NOTE: In all these cases, the President takes a “leave of absence” and the Vice-President
temporarily acts as the President.

Despite receipt of the letter from the President that he is merely “on leave”, the House of
Representatives passed, on January 24, 2001, House Resolution No. 176 which expresses
support for the assumption into office of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Later both Houses
confirmed the nomination of Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. Bills were then sent to the
President by Congress which she had signed. Congress, as a co-equal branch of government,
has recognized Arroyo as de jure President and not merely as Acting President. (Estrada vs.
Arroyo, supra.)

4. Serious Illness of the President (Art. VII, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution)

In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health.
The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of
Staff of the AFP shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.

Sec. 12 envisions not just illness which incapacitates but also any serious illness which can be a
matter of national concern. (Bernas, Reviewer, supra 293)
Under Section 12, the serious illness does not result to vacancy because the Cabinet members
in charge of national security and foreign relations can still access the President. Its purpose is
to allow the President to make important decisions.

VICE PRESIDENT

The Vice President shall have the same qualifications and term of office as the President. He
may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. (Sec. 3, Art. VII, 1987
Constitution)

The Vice President has essentially no executive function except as a reserved President unless
he is appointed as a Cabinet member or given an executive function. His appointment as
Department Head does not need the consent of the Commission on Appointments in deference
to his office.

In case of vacancy, the President shall nominate a Vice President from among the members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a
majority vote of all the Members of both House of Congress voting separately. (Sec. 9, Art. VII,
1987 Constitution)

The appointment of the Vice President as Chairman of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission
was not an appointment to a Cabinet position nor to a position constituting an intimate element
of his duties as Vice –president. But the appointment’s validity was never challenged. The only
possible explanation for the tolerance of the situation must be the assumption that the
prohibition is meant to prevent the enhancement of the powers of one who is already powerful
or busy with other duties. The Vice President, by nature of his office, is neither powerful nor
busy. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines A Commentary, 1987)

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

CONCEPTS

Judicial Power

Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

Scope of Judicial Power

Adjudicatory Powers - To settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable.

Expanded Power of Judicial review - To determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government (Sec. 1[2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).

This second paragraph effectively limits the “Political Question” area that, heretofore, was
forbidden territory for the courts. This is an added provision in the 1987 Constitution which
broadens the scope of judicial power.
Incidental Powers – those which are necessary to the effective discharge of the judicial
functions such as: power to punish persons adjudged in contempt and power to issue
restraining orders or prohibition and injunction in aid of power of judicial review.

However, it should be made clear that any conduct of media, or any other party for that matter,
which tends to, directly or indirectly, impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, is
subject to the contempt powers of the courts. The courts should and will not hesitate to use this
power when acts inimical to the speedy and impartial dispensation of justice are committed.
(People vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. 111009-12, December 8, 1994)

Basis of the Court’s Contempt Power (Cabansag vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974 October 18, 1957)

“We agree that that courts have the power to preserve their integrity and maintain their dignity
without which their administration of justice is bound to falter or fail. This is the preservative
power to punish for contempt (Rule 64, Rules of Court). This power is inherent in all courts and
essential to their right of self-preservation. In order that it may conduct its business unhampered
by publications which tends to impair the impartiality of its decisions or otherwise obstruct the
administration of justice, the court will not hesitate to exercise it regardless of who is affected.
For, "as important as is the maintenance of unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights
of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary". The reason for this is
that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such said institution
would be resting on a very shaky foundation.”

“No less important is the ruling on the power of the court to punish for contempt in relation to the
freedom of speech and press. We quote; "Freedom of speech and press should not be impaired
through the exercise of the punishment for contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the
utterances in question are a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. A judge
may hold in contempt one who ventures to publish anything that tends to make him unpopular
or to belittle him. The vehemence of the language used in newspaper publications concerning a
judge's decision is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt. The fires which it
kindles must constitute an imminent not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice.”

Judicial Review

It is the power of the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution and to
declare any legislative or executive act invalid because it is in conflict with the fundamental law.
(Biraogo vs Truth Commission, G.R. Nos 192935 and 193036, December 7, 2010)

Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-
equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance
with the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the
Court finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing
the actions under review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as
void and unconstitutional. The Court cannot just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will
continue to uphold the Constitution and its enshrined principles. The Constitution must ever
remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to
sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. (Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, G.R. No.
192935, December 7, 2010)
REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

a. There must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power.

It involves a conflict of legal rights, assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of legal
resolution. It must be both ripe for resolution and susceptible of judicial determination,
and that which is not conjectural or anticipatory, or that which seeks to resolve
hypothetical or feigned constitutional problems.

There can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill.

The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not
before. (In the Matter Of: Save The Supreme Court Judicial Independence And Fiscal Autonomy
Movement vs Abolition Of Judiciary Development Fund And Reduction Of Fiscal Autonomy, UDK-
15143, January 21, 2015)

Direct Injury Test: The person challenging the act must have the standing to question the
validity of the subject act or issuance.

b. There must be a proper party who is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. (People vs. Vera, G.R. No. 45685
November 16, 1937)

LOCUS STANDI (LEGAL STANDING) – a personal and substantial interest in a case

such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
governmental act that is being challenged . (Galicto vs Aquino, et. al., G.R. No, 193978,
February 28, 2012)

Elements:

1. Petitioner must have suffered some actual or threatened injury which can be legal,
economic, or environmental;
2. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
3. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action (Telecommunications and
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922, April 21, 1998)

Rules on the Liberal Approach on Locus Standi:

1. Taxpayer Standing – there must be claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that
the tax measure is unconstitutional.
2. Citizen Standing – the interest must be direct and personal. The person complaining
must show that he has been or is about to be denied of some right or privilege to which
he is lawfully entitled. However, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public
right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
3. Legislative Standing – there must be a claim that official action complained of infringes
the powers and privilege vested by the Constitution in his office.

AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE – a party can question the validity of a statute only if, as
applied to him, it is unconstitutional.

FACIAL CHALLENGE – permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though,
as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied to others not before
 the court whose activities are constitutionally protected. Invalidation of the statute “on its
face,” rather than “as applied,” is permitted in the interest of preventing a “chilling effect”
on freedom of expression.

VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE – a statute or act suffers from the defect of

vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
flexing of the Government muscle.

OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE – decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent

activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. As
distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assumes that
individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and will accordingly refrain from that
behavior, even though some of it is protected.

c. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in the pleadings before a
competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if not raised in the pleadings, it cannot
be considered in trial and, if not considered in trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.

The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain questions regarding constitutionality of

laws. Thus, when the issue of constitutionality of a law was raised before the Court of
Appeals, which is the competent court, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest
opportune time. (Estarija vs. Ranada, G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006)

d. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. (LAMP vs. Secretary of
Budget and Management, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012)

The controversy must be justiciable, definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of
parties having adverse legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active
antagonistic assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other
hand; that is, it must concern a real and not merely a theoretical question or issue. There
ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a
decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would
be upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines
vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159139, June 15, 2005).

OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

The law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional law, prior to
its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. This is a
rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an
unconstitutional law produces no effects. It can never be invoked to validate as
constitutional an unconstitutional act. It affects or modifies only the effects of the
unconstitutional law, not the unconstitutional law itself. (League of Cities of the Philippines vs
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 176951, 177499, and 178056, August 24, 2010)
 The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination [of unconstitutionality], is an
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot
always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to
invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, with respect to particular relations,
individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official.

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

Those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government. (Tañada vs. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520,
February 28, 1957)

Distinction between Justiciable and Political Questions

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION POLITICAL QUESTION

Definition A definite and concrete dispute touching
on the legal relations of parties having
adverse legal interests which may be
resolved by a court of law through the
application of a law. (Cutaran vs. DENR, G.
R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001)
Assumption of a It is a matter appropriate for court review.
court of law It pertains to issues which are inherently
susceptible of being decided on grounds
recognized by law (IBP vs. Zamora, G.R.
No. 141284, August 15, 2000)
It means a ‘question of
policy’ it refers to “those
questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in
their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full
discretionary authority has
been delegated to the
Legislature or executive
branch of the Government”
(Tañada vs. Cuenco, supra.)
The Court does not
automatically assume
jurisdiction over actual
constitutional cases brought
before it even in instances
that are ripe for resolution.
The grant of power is
qualified, conditional and
subject to limitation as to
“whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of the official whose
action is being questioned”
(IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No.
141284, August 15, 2000)

Test whether the question is political or justiciable: In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly
political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question
“whether there are constitutionality imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon
political bodies.” If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or
instrumentality of the government properly acted within limits. (Francisco Jr. vs. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003)

The intrinsic constitutionality of the "Pork Barrel System" is not an issue dependent upon the
wisdom of the political branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution
itself has commanded the Court to act upon. Scrutinizing the contours of the system along
constitutional lines is a task that the political branches of government are incapable of rendering
precisely because it is an exercise of judicial power. More importantly, the present Constitution
has not only vested the Judiciary the right to exercise judicial power but essentially makes it a
duty to proceed therewith. Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution cannot be any clearer.
(Belgica et al. vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251, November 19, 2013)

It must also be borne in mind that when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; does not in reality
nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature or the executive, but only asserts the solemn and
sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution." To a great extent, the Court is laudably
cognizant of the reforms undertaken by its co-equal branches of government. But it is by
constitutional force that the Court must faithfully perform its duty. Ultimately, it is the Court‘s
avowed intention that a resolution of these cases would not arrest or in any manner impede the
endeavors of the two other branches but, in fact, help ensure that the pillars of change are
erected on firm constitutional grounds. After all, it is in the best interest of the people that each
great branch of government, within its own sphere, contributes its share towards achieving a
holistic and genuine solution to the problems of society. For all these reasons, the Court cannot
heed respondents’ plea for judicial restraint. (Belgica et al. vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos.
208566, 208493, and 209251, November 19, 201)

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND AUTONOMY

The Supreme Court is a constitutional body. It may not be abolished by legislature.

The members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment.

NOTE: In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018),
the Supreme Court, through Justice Tijam, said that “impeachment is not an exclusive remedy
by which an invalidly appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed from
office.”

Furthermore, the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo
warranto action against impeachable officers: “[T]he Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office
...” The provision uses the permissive term “may” which, in statutory construction, denotes
discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect. An option to remove by
impeachment admits of an alternative mode of effecting the removal. (Republic of the Philippines
vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)

a. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of minimum original and appellate jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction may not be increased without its advice and concurrence.
b. Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not
subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
c. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel.
d. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to discipline judges/justices of inferior courts.
e. Members of the Judiciary have security of tenure, which cannot be undermined by a law
reorganizing the Judiciary.
f. The members of the Judiciary may not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial
or administrative functions.
g. The Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy; salaries of judges may not be reduced.
h. The Supreme Court alone may promulgate Rules of Court
i. Congress can no longer enact any law governing rules of procedure for the courts. (Echegaray
vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999)
j. The Supreme Court alone may order temporary detail of judges.
k. The Supreme Court can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

Issue raised at the earliest opportunity: Constitutional question should be raised at the earliest
opportunity, such that if not raised in pleadings, it may not be raised at the trial, if not raised in
trial court, it will not be considered on appeal.

GENERAL RULE: The question must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

EXCEPTIONS:

a. In criminal cases, the question can be raised at any time at the discretion of the court.
b. In civil cases, the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for the
determination of the case itself.

In every case, except where there is an estoppel, it can be raised at any stage if it involves the
jurisdiction of the court. (People of the Philippines vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937)

The decision on the constitutional question must be determinative of the case itself: Courts will
not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is very lis mota or crux
of controversy.

The courts indulge the presumption of constitutionality and go by the maxim that “to doubt is to
sustain.” The theory is that, as the joint act of the legislative and executive authorities, a law
supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally
enacted. (Cordillera Board Coalition vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 79956, January 29, 1990)

Courts will not pass upon a question of constitutionality, although properly presented, if the case
can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general
law. (Ty vs. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, December 1, 1995)

FISCAL AUTONOMY

The freedom from outside control. Pursuant to the Constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must
enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law. It knows its
priorities just as it is aware of the fiscal restraints. The Chief Justice must be given a free hand
on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed . (Bengzon vs Drilon, G.R. No.
103524, April 15, 1992)
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly
released. (Sec. 3, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

The fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary guaranteed by the Constitution recognized the authority of
the Supreme Co
urt to levy, assess, and collect fees. Congress cannot amend the rules promulgated by the
Supreme Court for the payment of legal fees by granting exemptions (In Re: Exemption from
Payment of Court and Sheriff’s Fees of Duly Registered Cooperatives, A.M. No. 12-2-03-0,
March 12, 2012)

APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY

1. Qualifications

A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence (Section 7 (3), Art VIII, 1987 Constitution).

In addition:

SUPREME COURT COURT OF REGIONAL TRIAL METROPOLITA

APPEALS COURT N TRIAL
COURT,
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT,
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT
Natural born citizen of the Philippines
A judge of a lower A judge of a lower Has been engaged in Has been
court or engaged in court or engaged in the practice of law in engaged in the
the practice of law in the practice of law in the Philippines or has practice of law in
the Philippines for 15 the Philippines for 15 held a public office in the Philippines or
years or more. years or more.* the Philippines has held a public
requiring admission to office in the
*Same qualifications the practice of law as Philippines
as provided in the an indispensable requiring
1987 Constitution for requisite for at least 10 admission to the
Justices of the years. practice of law as
Supreme Court. (Sec. an indispensable
7, Ch. 1, B.P. Blg. requisite for at
129) least 5 years.
At least 40 years of age At least 35 years of At least 30 years
age of age
Procedure for Appointment

Appointed by the President of the Philippines from among a list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.

For lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from submission
of the list.

NOTE: Relate this to the constitutional limitation against midnight appointments (Art. VIII, Sec.
15), which provides that two months immediately b elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or acting President shall not make appointments except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger
public safety.

Overturned ruling by the Court states that “During this period (of prohibition), the President is
not required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so. While the filling up of
vacancies in the Judiciary is in the public interest, there is no showing in this case of any
compelling reason to justify the making of the appointment ban. ”(In Re: Mateo Valenzuela, AM No.
98-5-01-SC, November 9, 1998)

Reversing Valenzuela, the SC held that the prohibition in Sec. 15, Art. VII is confined to
appointments made in the Executive Department. The framers did not need to extend the
prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary, because their establishment of the JBC and their
subjecting the nomination and screening of candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and
deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would no longer be midnight
appointments to the Judiciary. Also, the intervention of the JBC eliminates the danger that
appointments to the Judiciary can be made for the purpose of buying votes in a coming
presidential election, or of satisfying partisan considerations. The experience from the time of
the establishment of the JBC shows that even candidates for judicial positions at any level
backed by people influential with the President could not always be assured of being
recommended for the consideration of the President, because they first had to undergo the
vetting of the JBC and pass muster there. Indeed, the creation of the JBC was precisely
intended to de-politicize the Judiciary by doing away with the intervention of the Commission on
Appointments. (De Castro vs. Judicial Bar Council, G. R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010)

Judicial and Bar Council

Composition (Sec. 8 [1], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

1. Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman

2. Secretary of Justice
3. Representative of the Congress as ex officio Member
4. Representative of the Integrated Bar
5. Professor of law
6. Retired Member of the Supreme Court
7. Representative of the private sector

Staggered Terms of JBC Members (Sec. 8 [2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Regular Members:

1. Chief Justice – 4 years

2. Secretary of Justice – 4 years
3. Representative of Congress – 4 years

Other Members:

4. Representative of the Integrated Bar – 4 years

5. Professor of law – 3 years
6. Retired member of the SC – 2 years
7. Representative of private sector – 1 year

Powers/Functions

The JBC shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may
exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. (Sec. 8 [5], Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution)

In JBC proceedings, an aspiring judge or justice justifies his qualifications for the office when he
presents proof of his scholastic records, work experience and laudable citations. The JBC then
takes every possible step to verify an applicant's track record for the purpose of determining
whether or not he is qualified for nomination. It ascertains the factors which entitle an applicant
to become a part of the roster from which the President appoints. The fact that a proceeding is
sui generis and is impressed with discretion, however, does not automatically denigrate an
applicant’s entitlement to due process. The Court subscribes to the view that in cases where an
objection to an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither
negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend. (Jardeleza vs.
Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014)

THE SUPREME COURT

Composition - A Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion,
in divisions of three, five or seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from
occurrence thereof (Sec. 4[1], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
Powers:

En Banc and Division Cases

Cases that are heard En Banc:

a. Cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement,

executive orders, presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations (Sec. 4[2], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
b. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty.
c. Cases raising novel questions of law (Firestone Ceramics vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
27022, June 28, 2000).
d. Cases involving ambassadors, other public minister and consuls (Firestone Ceramics v
s. Court of Appeals, supra.)
 e. Cases or matters heard by a division where the required number of votes to decide or
resolve is not met (Sec. 4[3], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
f. Cases intended to modify or reverse a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court
in a decision rendered en banc or in division (Sec. 4[3], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
g. Administrative disciplinary cases involving dismissal or judges of lower courts, officer or
employee of the judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or order the suspension of them for a
period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P 10,000 or both (Sec. 11, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution).
h. Actions instituted by citizens to test the validity of a proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ (Sec. 18, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
i. Election contests for President or Vice President. (Sec. 4[7], Art. VII, 1987 Constitution).
j. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at least three (3) members thereof
merit the attention of the court sitting en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the
actual membership of the court sitting en banc (Firestone Ceramics vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.)
k. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its actual membership may deem of
sufficient importance to merit its attention.

Procedural Rule Making

RULE-MAKING POWER – promulgates rules concerning (1) Protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, (2) Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, (3) Admissions to the
practice of law, (4) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and (5) Legal assistance to the
underprivileged.

“For the Court's power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing
at the time of the Constitution's approval. This power is "to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts," which is a power to adopt a general, complete
and comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and different rules without regard to their
source and discarding old ones.” (People vs. Teng Moner, G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018)

Limitations on rule making power

a. Provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for speedy disposition of cases

b. Uniform for all courts in the same grade
c. Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights

Administrative supervision over lower courts

Mere division of the SC may discipline a judge of the lower courts, including justices of the CA
and the Sandiganbayan; the SC is required to decide a case en banc only when the dismissal of
a judge is involved. (People vs Gacott, G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995) By a vote of a majority of the
members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon, it can order their dismissal. (Sec. 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

The Ombudsman may not initiate or investigate a criminal or administrative complaint before his
office against a judge, he must first indorse the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate
action. (Fuentes vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No. 124295, October 23, 2001)

In the absence of any administrative action taken against the RTC Judge by the Supreme Court
with regard to the former’s certificate of service, the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman
encroaches upon the Supreme Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and
its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. (Maceda vs. Vasquez, G.R.
No. 102781, April 22, 1993)

Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

Powers of the Supreme Court (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)

a. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and
consuls, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus
b. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules
of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

1. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
5. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

c. Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the
judge concerned.
d. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
e. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
f. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law.

Exclusive Original Jurisdiction (Sec. 5 par. 1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution)

CIVIL: Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
following:
Court of Appeals
Commission on Elections En Banc
Commission on Audit
Sandiganbayan

CRIMINAL: Petitions for issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the
following:
Court of Appeals
Sandiganbayan
Appellate Jurisdiction (Sec. 5 par. 2, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution)

CIVIL:

Appeal by petition for review on certiorari:

Appeals from the CA;
Appeals from the CTA;
Appeals from RTC exercising original jurisdiction
If no question of fact is involved and the case involves:
Constitutionality or validity of treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation
Legality of tax, impost, assessments, or toll, or penalty in relation thereto
Cases in which jurisdiction of lower court is in issue

All cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.

Special civil action of certiorari – filed within 30 days against the Commission on Elections or
Commission on Audit.

CRIMINAL:

All criminal cases involving offenses from which the penalty is reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and those involving other offenses, which although not so punished arose out of
the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the same
occasion.

NOTE: In criminal cases, when the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua,
appeal is automatic to the CA. (A.M. No. 04-9-05-SC; People vs. Mateo y Garcia, G.R. No. 147678-87,
July 7, 2004)

Criminal cases in which the death penalty is imposed by the Sandiganbayan

Appeals from the CA
Appeals from the Sandiganbayan
Appeals from RTC in which only errors or questions of law are involved
NOTE: Relate this to the Constitutional Prohibition on increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
SC without its advice and concurrence.

Sec. 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) which authorizes appeal via a
petition for certiorari from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative
disciplinary cases to the Supreme Court was held to be unconstitutional for being violative of
Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which provides that no law shall be passed increasing
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice
and concurrence. (Fabian vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998)

The second paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770 which provides that no appeal or application for
remedy may be heard against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, with the exception of
the Supreme Court on pure questions of law was also held to be unconstitutional. Congress
cannot interfere with matters of procedure; hence, it cannot alter the scope of a Rule 45 appeal
so as to apply to interlocutory "findings" issued by the Ombudsman. Since the second
paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against "decision or findings" of the
Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus - similar to the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA
6770 - attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction without its
advice and concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the former provision is also
unconstitutional and perforce, invalid. (Morales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015).