Constitutional Law I Case Gist Reviewer

(Atty. Jamon’s Consti1 case syllabus) By: Dann Mercado with notes from Cristian Saba

Part 1 Introduction A. The Constitution as a Social Contract -“It is a handcuff to restrain the government from encroaching upon the rights of the People, not the other way around.” – Atty. Antonio Jamon -“It is a balance between authority and liberty.” – Atty. Antonio Jamon

Constitutional Law – it is the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between the authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Constitution – the document which serves as the fundamental law of the state; that written instrument enacted by the direct action of the government are established, limited and distributed among the several departments for their safe and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic.

B. How to read the Constitution -Francisco v. House of Representatives Principles of Constitutional Construction:

1. Verba Legis - Wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given

their ordinary meaning, except where technical terms are employed. 2. Ration Legis Est Anima

- The words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the Intent of its framers.

3. Ut Magi Valeat Quam Pereat - The Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

C. A framework for constitutional litigation Francisco v. House of Representatives Essential Requisites for judicial review

1. An actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; 2. The person challenging the act must have “standing” to challenge;

3. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and

4. The issue of constitutionality must be the very list mota of the case.

Part II Amendment of the Constitution A. Amendments v. Revision

Amendments – alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provision of the Constitution

Revision – reexamination of the entire Constitution or an important cluster of provisions in the Constitution.

B. Proposal 1. By Congress as a constituent assembly

- Section 1 (1), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: “Section 1, Any Amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: 1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; …”

2. By Constitutional Convention

- Section 1 (2), Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: “Sec. 1. Any Amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: x x x (2) A Constitutional Convention.”

-Section 3, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:

“Sec. 2. The Congress may, by a vote of two-third of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

-Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution:

“Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision, of this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor alter then ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety

days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the Sufficiency of the Petition.

-Gonzales v. Comelec

-The Congress’s power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution is a constituent power emanating from the People through the Constitution – as they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself. - The plebiscite may be done either through special or general election for the Constitution does not qualify. But ideally it should be special so as to submit it to the people for their approval independent of the election of public officials. - The determination of conditions under which the proposed amendments or revisions shall be submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within the legislative sphere. - The choice of which constituent assembly should initiate amendments or revisions is a matter of wisdom left to the discretion of Congress.

3. By the people thru intitiative

-Section 2, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution: “Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the People through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represent by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five year following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.”

- Santiago v. Comelec

-The system of initiative on the Constitution under Sec. 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory; thus, it requires an enabling law. Also, it is confined to amendments only, not revisions of the Constitution.

- Lambino v. Comelec - In order for a petition to be a valid initiative, it must first comply with the requirements of Sec. 2, Article XVII, of the Constitution even before complying with R.A. 6735 (System of Initiative and Referendum). It must also contain only one (1) subject.

C. Submission -Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra.

-Tolentino v. Comelec -All amendments to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention must be submitted to the people in a single “election” or plebiscite. -In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only the sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which is has to form a harmonious whole. A proposal to amend the Constitution should be submitted to the people not separately from but together with all the other amendment to be proposed by the Constitutional Convention.

D. Ratification -Section 4, Article XVII, of the 1987 Constitution, supra.

Part III. Judicial Review A. Separation of Powers -In Re: Wenceslao Laureta

-Judicial power is by no means a “display of arrogance” but a restatement of the fundamental principle of separation of powers and checks and balances under a republican form of government, that the three co-equal branches of the government - executive, legislative, and judicial – 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.

-Demetria v. Alba

-Where the legislature or the executive branch is acting within the limits of its authority, the judiciary cannot and ought not to interfere with the former. But where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it becomes the duty

of the judiciary to declare what the other branches of the government had assumed to do, as void. This is the essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law”.

- 7 Pillars of Judicial Restraint

a. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a legislation unless it is the last resort, and is a necessity in the determination of the important issues between individuals.

b. The Court will not decide questions of constitutionality unless it is absolutely necessary to the case. c. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law outside the context of the facts to which is it to be applied. d. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question if there are some other grounds to which it can be decided. e. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute when a complainant fails to show that he is injured by its operation. f. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute when the complainant has once benefited from it. g. When the constitutionality of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, the Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statue is possible of resolving it.

B. Theory and Justification of Judicial Review -Angara v. Electoral Commission

-The Constitution has rationally provided the Judiciary the power to determine the nature, scope and extent of the powers of government. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn an d sacred obligation assigned to it be by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees them. This is “judicial supremacy” which properly is the power of the judicial review under the Constitution.

C. Justiciable and Political Questions

-Miranda v. Aguirre - Political question connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people ion their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. -A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act of omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by aw, for said breach of right.

-Francisco v. House of Representatives, Supra.

-There are two species of political questions: (1) “truly political questions” and (2) “not truly political questions”. The former is beyond judicial review, while the former is subject to the review of the court.

-The determination of a truly political question from a non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies. If there are, the courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality of the government property acted within such limits.

D. Requisites of Judicial Review 1. Actual Case or Controversy Prematurity: -PACU v. Secretary of Education

-Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy.

-Where the petitioning private schools are actually operating by virtue of permits issued to them by the Secretary of Education under a law, who is not show to have threatened to revoke their permits, there is no justiciable controversy that would authorize the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of the law. -Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest therein, however intellectually solid the problem may be.

-Mariano v. Comelec -The petition is premised on the occurrence of many contingent events. Considering that these contingencies may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.

-Montesclaros v. Comelec

-Petitioner’s prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no rights and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress.

-Mootness -Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec, DAR

-The provisions that the petitioners are refuting are now repealed and excluded from the coverage of CARL. IN view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of a new law which repealed the same.

-Lacson v. Perez

-All the petitions assailing the declaration of a state of rebellion of PGM and the warrantless arrests allegedly effected by virtue thereof, as having no basis both in fact and in law. Significantly, PGMA ordered the lifting of the declaration of a “state of rebellion” in Metro Manila. Accordingly, the instant petitioners have been rendered moot and academic.

-Exceptions to Mootness: -Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary

-As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial power being limited to the determination of “actual controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will decide a question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of repetition yet evading review.”

-Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita

-As an exception to the rule of mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petition does not bar its resolution. The question of constitutionality of the President’s appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in session will arise in every such appointment.

2. Proper Party -Joya v. PCGG

-One having no rights or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. The courts will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before by a party who has legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal question.

-“Legal standing” means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The term “interest” is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. Moreover, the interest of the party plaintiff must be personal and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.

-Agan v. Piatco

-The question on legal standing is whether such parties have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that the sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties bi reason of the statute or act complained of.

-CHREA v. CHR

-A proper party is one who ahs sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of.

-Automotive Industry Workers’ Alliance v. Romulo

-Even with the presence of an actual case or controvery, the Supremen Court may refuse to exercise judicial review unless the constitutional question is brought before it by a party having the requisite standing to challenge it. -For a citizen to have standing, he must establish that he has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. -A taxpayer’s suit is properly brought only when there is an exercise of the spending or taxing power of Congress.

-Citizen Standing -Tanada v. Tuvera

-The right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the law. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding, it would indeed be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same, considering that the Solicitor General, the government officer generally empowered to represent the people, has entered his appearance for respondents in the case.

-Chavez v. PEA

-In this case, the right of citizens to information on matters of public concern and application of constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens, are enough to give rise to a citizen’s standing.

-Associational Standing -KMU v. Labor Center

-The petitioner, whose members had suffered and continue to suffer grave and irreparable injury and damage from the implementation of the questioned memoranda, circulars and/or orders, has shown that it has a clear legal right that was violated and constitutes to be violated with the enforcement of the challenged memoranda, circulars and/or

orders. KMU members, who avail the use of buses, trains, and jeepneys everyday, are directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares. They are part of the millions of commuters who comprise the riding public. Certainly, their rights must be protected, not neglected or ignored.

-IBP v. Zamora

-The IBP primarily anchors its standing o its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration, however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing more is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in the case. This is too general an interest which is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the standards above-stated; the BIP has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. -It should also be noted that the interest of the National President of IBP who signed the petition, is his alone, absent a formal board resolution authorizing him to file the present action. To be sure, members of the BAR those in the judiciary included, have varying opinions on the issue. Moreover, no injury sustained by them was shown. The injury they were contending is presumed, not personal in character, and is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing.

-Kilosbayan v. Guingona, Jr.

-A party’s standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. The court may brushed aside technicality when the issue is of “transcendental importance to the public”,

-Executive Secretary v. CA

-An association has standing to complain of injuries of its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an association with that of its members. An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of interest if its members are affected by their action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.

-Taxpayer’s Standing -ITF v Comelec

-Taxpayers are allow to sue when there is a claim of “illegal disbursement of public funds”, or if public money is being “deflected to any improper purpose”; or when petitioners seek to restrain respondent from “wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.”

-Voter’s Standing -Tolentino v. Comelec

-In questioning, in their capacity as voters, the petitioners assert a harm classified as a “generalized grievance”. This generalized grievance is shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters, who voted in that election.

-The court may relax the requirement on standing and exercised their discretion to give due course to voter’s suit involving right of suffrage.

-Legislative Standing -Ople v. Torres

-The petitioner, as senator, is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the there is a usurpation of legislative power.

-Governmental Standing -People v. Vera

-The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. OF greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon eh fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.

-Facial Challenge -Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

-A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible “chilling effect: upon protected speech. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e.,

that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.

-Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from the very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful l conducts. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The over breadth and vagueness doctrines then have a special application only to free speech cases.

3. Earliest Opporunity -Umali v. Guingona

-As regards the issue of constitutionality of PCAGC, it was only posed by the petitioner in his motion of reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It was certainly too late to raise the said issue for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings below.

4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Questions

Arceta v. Mangrobang

Part IV The Three Branches of the Government A. Congress 1. Composition, Qualification and Term of Office a. Senate

Sec. 1 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 . 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.

Sec. 3. No person shall be a senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of election.

Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.

No Senator shall serve for more than two 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.

b. House of Representatives

Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundrede and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ration, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, your, and such other sectors as may be provided by aw, except the religious sector.

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two-hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.

(4) Within three years following the return of ever census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. Sec. 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the elections. -Macias v. Comelec -An act that gives provinces with less number of inhabitants more representative districts than those with bigger population is

declared invalid because it violations the principle of proportional representation prescribed by the Constitution. -Tan v. Comelec -A plebiscite must be conducted in both parent province and mother province that are affected. -Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec

- The 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI is not mandatory but merely a ceiling. The 2% threshold and three-seat limit is constitutional Formula on how to determine the additional seats: 1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HR, including those under the party-list. 2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total votes cast for party-list are qualified to have a seat. 3. three-seat limit – additional seats shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes”.

4. proportional representation -Bagong Bayani v. Comelec

-Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants

1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. 2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." 3. Third, religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. 4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941.

5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. 6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so. 7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. 8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

-Aquino v. Comelec

-The candidate “must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice.”

-Clearly, the place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,” where he, no matter where he maybe found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. The manifest purpose of this deviation is “to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community” from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain.

-While there is nothing wrong with the practice of establishing residence in an area for meeting election law requirements, this nonetheless defeats the essence of representation, which is to place through he assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the need of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of residency mandated by law for him to qualify. That purpose could be obviously best me by individuals who have either had actual resident in the are for a given period or who have been domiciled in the same area either by origin or choice.

-Property ownership is not and should never be indicia of the right to vote or to be voted upon.

-The absence of clear and positive proof showing a successful abandonment of domicile under the conditions stated above, the lack of identification – sentimental, actual, or otherwise – with the area, and the suspicious circumstances under which the lease agreement was effected belies claim of residency for the period required by the Constitution.

-Marcos v. Comelec -Concept of domicile to mean an individuals’ “permanent home” , “a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.”

-Domicile includes the twin elements of “the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and animus manendi, or intention of returning there permanently.

-Residence, it its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community, or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose it I is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residence in various paces, However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.

-Torayno v. Comelec

-In requiring candidates to have a minimum period of residence in the area in which they seek to be elected, the Constitution or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a “stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and need sof a community and not identified with the latter from [seeking] an elective office to serve that community.”

-Such provision is aimed at excluding outsiders “from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain.” Establishing residence in a community merely to meet an election law requirement defeat the purpose of representation: to elect through the

assent of voters those most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of the community. This purpose is “best met by individuals who have either had actual residence in the are for a given period or who have been domiciled in the same are either by origin or by choice.”

-The residence requirement is rooted in the desire that officials of districts or localities be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their constituencies but, more important, with eh constituents themselves – their needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters vital to their common welfare, The requisite period would give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with their desired constituencies, and likewise for the electorate to evaluate the former’s qualifications and fitness for the offices they seek.

-Banat v. Comelec -The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the Members of HR. The continued operation of the 2% threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the HR shall consist of party-list representatives.

2. Election a. Regular Election

Sec. 8 . Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.

b. Special Election 3. Organizations and Sessions

Sec. 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective members.

Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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 nay on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.

(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two House shall be sitting.

a. Election of Officers Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.

-The term “majority” has been judicially defined a number of times. When referring to a certain number out of a total or aggregate, it simply “means the number greater than half or more than half of any total.” The plain and unambiguous words of the subject constitutional clause simple mean that the Senate President must obtain the votes of more than one half of all the senators. Not by any construal does it thereby delineate who comprise the “majority,” much less the minority,” in the said body. And there is not showing that the framers of our Constitution had in mind other than the usual meaning of these terms.

-Majority may also refer to “the group, party, or faction with the larger number of votes,” not necessarily more than one half. This is sometimes referred to as plurality. In contrast, minority is “a group, party, or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority.” Between two unequal parts or numbers compresigina whole or totality, the greater number would obviously be the majority, while the lesser would be minority.

-In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be elected by a number of constituting more than one half of all the members thereof, it does not provide that the members who willl not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute “minority,” who could thereby elect the minority leader, Verily, no law or regulation states that the

defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority leader.

-While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a Senate President and A House Speaker, it is, however, dead silent on the manner of selecting the other officers in both chambers of Congress. All that the Charter says us that “[e]ach house shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.” The method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself, not by this Court.

b. Quorum -Avelino v. Cuenco

- When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each house” shall constitute a quorum, “the House” does not mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute the “House.” There is a difference between a majority of “all members of the Zhouse” and a majority of “the House”, the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore, an absolute majority (13) of all the members of the Senate (24), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of quorum.

c. Rules of Proceeding -Pacete v. Commission on Appointments

-The courts may acquire jurisdiction over the rules of proceedings of the CA. The courts are called upon to see it that private rights are not invaded. This even legislative acts and executive orders are not beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. Certainly, there is nothing sacrosanct about a rule of the CA, especially so, when as in this case, a construction sought to be fastened on it would defeat the right of an individual to a public office. It certainly can be inquired into in an appropriate case, although the utmost deference should be paid to the interpretation accorded it by the Commission on Appointments itself.

-Arroyo v. De Venecia -What had been violated in the enactment of the law are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. In enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its

own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals, denies the courts the power to inquire into such allegations.

- Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing by the Speaker and the President of the Senate and the certification of secretaries by both Houses of Congress are conclusive of its due enactment.

d. Discipline of Members -Alejandrino v. Quezon

-Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish its members for disorderly behavior does not authorize it to suspend an appointive member from the exercise of his office for one year, conceding what has been so well state by the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceding all this and more, yet the writ prayed for cannot issue, for all-conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does not possess the power of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action. -The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction by mandamus to restrain or control action by the Philippine Legislature or a branch thereof.

-Osmena v. Pendatun

-The House of Repreesntatives is the judge of what constitutes orderly behaviour. The courts will not assume a jurisdiction in any case which will amount to an interference by the judicial department with the legislature. -The House of Representative is the judge of what constitutes orderly behavior, not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House\ knows best but which can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts.

-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan -The order of suspension prescribed by R.A. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution.

-The suspension contemplated in the Constitution is punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, upon an erring member.

-The suspension of R.A. 3019 is not a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure, presiding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatives.

e. Journal and Record

Part IV The Three Branches of Government

A. Congress (Taken from Christian Saba’s Notes) A1. Composition, Qualification and Term of Office

a. Senate b. House of Representatives

Macias v. COMELEC

The apportionment of the Members of the House of Representatives is not valid because it is not based on the number of inhabitants a province has.

Tan v. COMELEC

BP 885 – An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as Province of Negros Del Norte is unconstitutional. The plebiscite was not legal. Whenever a ”province xxx is created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, xxx the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directly affected”1 must first be obtained.

Veterans Fed. Party v. COMELEC The 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5(2), Article VI is not mandatory but merely a ceiling. The 2% threshold and three-seat limit is constitutional Formula on how to determine the additional seats: 1. 20% allocation- the combined number of all party-list representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HR, including those under the party-list. 2. 2% threshold- only those garnering at least 2% of the total votes cast for party-list are qualified to have a seat.

1 Section 10, Article 10, 1987 Constitution.

3. three-seat limit – additional seats shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes”. 4. proportional representation

Bagong Bayani v. COMLEC Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants 1. First, the political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. 2. Second, while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives." 3. Third, religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. 4. Fourth, a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. 5. Fifth, the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. 6. Sixth, the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so. 7. Seventh, not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. 8. Eighth, while lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.

Aquino v. COMELEC Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; bona fide intentions of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC In political law, domicile and residence are synonymous. An individual does not lose his domicile even if she has lived and maintained residence in different places. Minor follows the domicile of her parents. As domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained.

Torayno v. COMELEC Emano, having been the governor of Misamis Oriental for three terms and consequently residing in CDO, could not be said to be a stranger or newcomer to the city in the last year of his third term when he decided to adopt it as hi permanent place of residence.

BANAT v. COMELEC The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the Members of HR. The continued operation of the 2% threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the HR shall consist of party-list representatives. A2. Election a. Regular Election- Section 8, Article VI Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. b. Special Election- Section 9, Article VI Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law2, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. A3. Organizations and Sessions a. Election of Officers- Section 16 (1), Article VI

The Senate shall its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. Santiago v. Guingona

Petitioners held that majority is the group who voted for winning Senate President and accepted committee chairmanships. Whereas, the minority is the group who voted for the losing candidate for Senate Presidents and accepted no such chairmanships. The Supreme Court held that majority is the political party to which most number of lawmakers belonged (concept of plurality). The Constitution is silent as regards the manner of electing officers other than the Senate President and the House Speaker. Hence, it is within the province of the Legislative, not the Supreme Court, as conferred by the Constitution. b. Quorum- Art VI Sec 16(2):

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.

Avelino v. Cuenco

Quorum – any number sufficient to transact business, which may be less than the majority of the membership

2 Republic Act 7166

The base for computing the majority of the legislative body for the purpose of determining the existence of a quorum should normally be the total membership of the body, although it will be noted that in the case Avelino v. Cuenco the base used was twenty-three and not twenty-four, which was the total membership of the Senate.

c. Rules of Proceeding- Art VI Sec 16(3) 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.

Pacete v. Commission on Appointments The filing of a motion for reconsideration did not have an effect of automatically removing him from the position because there was still a need for the motion to be duly approved by the majority of members present. Arroyo v. De Venecia Legislative Act will not be declared invalid for non-compliance with internal rules. d. Discipline of Members- Art VI Sec 16(3)

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.

Alejandrino v. Quezon Where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have no power, irrespective of whether or not the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement. Osmena v. Penatun For unparliamentary conduct, members of Congress could be censured, committed to prison, suspended, or even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. Santiago v. Sandiganbayan The doctrine of separation of powers does not exclude members of Congress from the mandate of R.A. 3019. The order of suspension prescribed by RA 3019 is distinct from the powers of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution. e. Journal and Record- Art VI Sec 16(4)

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.

Journal- An abbreviated account of the daily proceedings

Record – word for word transcript of the daily proceedings e1. The Enrolled Bill Theory

An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the certifications of both the presiding officers of each House. A duly authenticated bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts.

CASCO v. Gimenez Since the enrolled bill is binding upon the courts, if there is an error in the printed bill, the proper remedy is through amendment and curative legislature, and not through judicial decree.

e2. Probative Value of the Journal US v. Pons

The Court could not look beyond the journal to determine the actual date of the passage of a bill, as it is an official act of the legislature. As such, it is superior to the recollections or memories of witnesses. To go beyond the journal would be to violate the letter and spirit of the official act, to encroach upon the authority of a coordinate and independent department, and to interfere with the powers of the legislature.

e3. Matters to be entered in the Journal *Yeas and nays of the final reading of the bill. *Veto message of the President. *Yeas and nays on repassing the bill vetoed by the President. * Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the Members present.

e4. Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory

Except only where the matters are required to be entered in the journal, the contents of the enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journal.

e5. Congressional Record- Article VI, Section 16(4) Each House shall keep a record of its proceedings. f. Session 1. Regular Session- convenes once every year at the 4th Monday of July. Continues to be in session until 30 days before the start of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. (Article VI, Section 15) 2. Special Session- Called by the President at any time when Congress is not in session. Special Session which need not be called by the President: *To pass a bill calling a special election in case of vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice- President. *To determine by two-third votes of both Houses, voting separately, whether the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

*To extend or revoke the existence of martial law or suspension of habeas corpus. 3. Joint Sessions Voting Separately *Choosing the President in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes (Art. VII, Sec. 4) *Determining the President’s temporary disability (Art. VII, Section 11, par.4) *Declaring a state of war (Art. VI, Sec. 23, par.1) *Amending the Constitution (Art. XVII, Sec. 1, par. 1) Voting Jointly *To extend or revoke martial law or suspension of habeas corpus (Art. VII, Sec. 18) A4. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications a. Salaries- Article VI, Section 10 The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall 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.

Philconsa v. Mathay The increased compensation provided by RA 4134 is not operative until December 30, 1969 when the full term of all members of Congress that approved it on June 20, 1964 will have expired.

Ligot v. Mathay Reiterated the ruling in Philconsa v. Mathay. Also cited Philconsa v. Jimenez where te Court held that “ RA 3836 is null and void because it took effect upon approval without awaiting the expiration of the full term of all the members of Congress approving such increase. b. Freedom from Arrest- Article VI, Sec. 11 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. Note: Immunity applies for as long as Congress is in session, whether or not the legislator involved is actually attending it. “Session” as here used does not refer to the day-to-day meetings of the legislature but to the entire period from its initial convening until its final adjournment.

People v. Jalosjos

Immunity from arrest is not enjoyed by one who has been convicted. Rape is punishable by more than six years imprisonment; hence immunity from arrest cannot be invoked.

c. Speech and Debate clause- Article VI, Sec.11 xxx No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress r in any committee thereof.

Jimenez v. Cabangbang

“Speech or debate” used in Article VI, Section 15 (now 11) of the Constitution refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions while Congress is in session. The open letter to the President was made by Cabangbang when Congress was not in session. And in causing the communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty xxx as a member of Congress. Hence, the communication is not absolutely privileged. d. Disqualifications- Article VI, Section 13; Article VI, Sec. 14 Article VI, Section 13 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. Incompatible Office – office that cannot be held by the legislator during his term in Congress, to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the government Forbidden Office – any office in the government that has been created or the emoluments thereof have been increased during the legislator’s term, to prevent trafficking in public office

Adaza v. Pacana

The law is clear and unambiguous. Adaza cannot exercise and discharge the functions of both Congressman and Governor simultaneously as the offices are incompatible. Article VI, Sec. 14 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. Puyat v. De Guzman

By virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as counsel but theoretically for the protection of hi ownership of shares in respect of the matter in litigation. However, under the facts and circumstances immediately preceding and following his purchase of the shares, we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect “appearance as counsel before an administrative body (SEC).” e. Duty to disclose- Article VI, Section 12 All Members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall 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. A5. Electoral Tribunals- Article VII, Section 17 The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be CHOSEN on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribnal shall be its Chairman. Abbas v. SET By providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members of Congress, the Constitution intended that both those judicial and legislative components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of Senators. The Electoral Tribunal cannot function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the Three-Justice Members alone the power of valid jurisdiction of a senatorial election contest. Bondoc v. Pineda Camasura’s expulsion from the Tribunal is a clear impairment of the Tribunal’s prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests. Codilla v. De Venecia The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in the case the winning candidate is disqualified. It is the HRET which has no jurisdiction. The issue on the validity of the COMELEC Second Division Resolution has not yet been resolved by the COMELEC en banc. Pimentel v. HRET

The Constitution expressly grants to the House of Representatives who may occupy the seats in the HRET and CA. Under Sections 17 and 18 of Article VI, party-list representatives must first show to the House that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to seats in HRET and CA. Only if the House fails to comply with this directive can the party-list representatives resort to this Court. The instant petitions are bereft of any allegation that respondents prevented the party-list groups in the House from participating I the election of members of HRET and CA. A6. Commission on Appointments- Article VI, Section 18 There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, ELECTED by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. Daza v. Singson The House of Representatives has the authority to change its representation in the Commission of Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. Such changes must be permanent and must not include temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation. Coseteng v. Mitra Since the total membership of the House of Representatives was 202, to be entitled to a seat in the Commission, a party must have 16.8 members in the House or 3.4% of the total membership. KAIBA was obviously short of the required number even if Coseteng had the support of members not belonging to her party. Guingona v. Gonzales The constitutional rule on proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments is violated when LDP converted the fractional ½ membership into a whole. In so doing, one other party’s fractional membership is made greater while the other suffers diminution of its rightful membership. The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation. No party can claim more than what is entitled. A7. Powers of Congress a. General Plenary Powers- any power that is deemed to be legislative is necessarily possessed by Congress, UNLESS the Constitution has vested it

elsewhere. (Ex. Legislative power was also given to the people through exercise of initiative and referendum) b. Limitations on the Legislative Power No power to pass irreppealable law. Non-encroachment on powers of other departments Non-delegability of powers o Agencies should merely execute laws, not make them. o Only the legislative department can enact laws with the exception of local governments, which may be allowed to legislate on purely local matters. 1. Substantive limitations- Circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subject of legislation which are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights 2. Procedural limitations- prescribing the manner of passing bills and the form they should take. A8. Legislative Process A8a. Requirements as to bills. a1. As to title of bills- Article VI, Sec 26 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Two limitations on legislative power under Sec. 26 (1) First, Congress shouldn’t conglomerate on heterogeneous subjects in one statute. Second, the title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof. Purpose of one title-one subject rule: *To prevent hodge-podge or log rolling legislation. *To prevent surprise or fraud upon legislature. *To fairly apprise the people. Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board The constitutional requirement on the title of bills is sufficiently complied with if the title were comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. Lidasan v. Comelec Statute was declared unconstitutional because the title did not inform the legislature of persons interested as to the full impact of the law.

Initiative- It is the reserved power of the people to directly propose and enact laws at polls called for the purpose independently of Congress or of a local legislative body. Referendum- It is the process by which any act or law or part thereof passed by Congress or by a local legislative body is submitted to the people for their approval or disapproval. R.A 6735 (System of Initiative and Referendum) Sec. 32, Article VI- 10% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. Sec. 1, Article XVII- 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. Dela Cruz v. Paras Ordinances by virtue of the general welfare clause must be reasonable, in consonance with the laws and public policy of the state. Such sweeping exercise of lawmaking power is unreasonable. It is a clear invasion of personal and property rights. Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs but it can regulate such. Tobias v. Abalos The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. It is natural and logical consequence of its conversion. a2. Requirements as to certain laws a2.1. Appropriation laws Article VII, Section 22 The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from 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. Article VI, Section 24 All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Article VI, Section 25

(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriations therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates. (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. (4) A special appropriations bill 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.. (5) 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. (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. (7) 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 Congress. Article VI, Section 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. I f the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. Appropriation is an authorization made by law or other legislative enactment, directing payment out of government funds under specified conditions and/or for specified purposes.

Appropriation bill is one the primary and specific aim of which is to make appropriations of money from the public treasury. Revenue Bill is one the primary and specific purpose of which is to raise revenue. Demetria v. Alba Paragraph 1 of PD 1177 is unconstitutional. It overextends the privilege granted under Sec. 25 (5), Article VI. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department xxx or agency of the Executive department to any program xxx of any department xxx included in the General Appropriations Act xxx without regards as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken. Augmentation Power- the power of the heads of the department to reallocate funds taken from their savings and which must be provided by law. Guingona v. Carague Although the Congress is mandated to assign the highest priority to education, it does not deprive Congress of the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest. They are vested with the power to reasonably service our debt to protect the credit standing of our country and our economy. The automatic appropriation for debt service in the 1990 budget is not violative of Art. VI, Sec. 29(1). Our Constitution does not require a definite, certain, or “specific appropriations made by law”. Our Constitution simply states that money paid out of the treasury must be made pursuant to an appropriation made by law. Philconsa v. Enriquez The power of appropriation lodged in Congress carries with it the power to specify the project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law, but it is still the executive that implements the project or activity specified to be funded. The constitutional provision which directs the State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education is merely directory. 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. The President can veto inappropriate provisions separately from other provisions. Note: A Congressman cannot realign appropriation by himself. He has to get the approval of the Speaker. As a general rule, the President may not veto a bill in part and approve it in part. The exception is provided in paragraph 2, Section 27 (line-veto power or item-veto power3 of the President).

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

3 can be applied only in appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill.

Note: The present Constitution only states item-veto but nothing specifies provision veto. However, jurisprudence (Gonzales v Macaraig and PHILCONSA v Enriquez) tackles the question on provision veto, which actually was expressly provided in the 1935 Constitution.)

Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision- The authority of the President to decide whether or not certain provision in a bill is constitutional. a2.2. Tax laws Article VI, Section 28 (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) 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. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. Power to tax, like police power and power of eminent domain, is an inherent power of the government. It need not be stated by the Constitution. Section 28 is not a grant of power but an enumeration of limits on taxing power. Power to tax can only be exercised for public purpose. Delegated tax legislation Article VI, Sec. 28 (2) supra. Article X, Sec. 5- Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that they are more sensitive to the local needs and problems. The Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending the receipt of the House bill.

Because the Senate bill was a mere amendment of the Hose Bill, it does not have to pass second and third reading. More so, it was certified by the President as urgent. The certification of the president dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days.4 Lung Center v. Q.C Lung Center should not be exempted from real property taxes. It failed to prove that the entire property is actually, directly, and exclusively used for charitable purposes. Only those portions of the hospital used for the patients are exempted. The lease portions for commercial use are not exempt from tax. Tan v. Del Rosario Uniformity of taxation simply means that: 1) The standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary; 2) Categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose; 3) The law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions; and 4) Classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class. Garcia v. Executive Secretary Generally, power of taxation is exclusive to Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers to others. Exceptions: Section 28(2) of Article VI, and Section 5 of Article X. John Hay v. Lim Tax exemption grant is unconstitutional. Incentives under R.A. 7227 are exclusive to the Subic Special Economic Zone. More importantly, under Section 28 (4) Article VI, only the Legislature can, through a concurrence of a majority of all its members, grant tax exemptions. a2.3. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Article VI, Sec. 30 No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence. Fabian v. Desierto Section 27 of RA 6770 which provides for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the SC is not valid. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be

4 Article VI, Section 26 (2). No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three

readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members

three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate

enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto

shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered

in the Journal.

brought to the CA on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. A8b. Procedure for the passage of bills (a) The Secretary reports for the first reading, which consists of reading the number and title of the bill, followed by its referral to the appropriate Committee for study and recommendation. (b) Second Reading: The bill shall be read in full with the amendments proposed by the Committee, if any, unless copies thereof are distributed and such reading is dispensed with. After the amendments, the bill will be voted on second reading. (c) Third Reading: The bill approved on second reading will be submitted for final votes by yeas and nays. No amendments may be introduced. (d) The bill approved on the third reading by one house is transmitted to the other House for concurrence, which will follow the same procedures as a bill originally filed with it. (e) If the other House introduces amendments and the House from which it originated does not agree with said amendments, the differences will be settled by the Conference Committee of both chambers, whose report or recommendation thereon will have to be approved by both Houses in order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President for action. (f) If the President shall it, and if after such consideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. Gonzales v. Macaraig Veto is valid where the item in the Appropriations bill is deemed inappropriate pursuant to Article VI Sec 25 (2). Section 55 and Section 16 were deemed inappropriate and are thus validly subject to veto for the following reasons: (1) does not “relate to any particular appropriation” but applies more to a general policy in respect to augmentation from savings; and, (2) it is repugnant to Article VI, Section 25(5), impairing the authority of the President and other officials to augment any item from savings xxx. Bengzon v. Drilon The President exceeded her item-veto power accorded by the Constitution [Article VI, Sec. 27 (2)]. The power to disapprove any item or items in an appropriation bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion. In this case, portions of an item have been chopped up into vetoed and unvetoed parts. Moreover, the vetoed portions are not items. They are provisions. Mardo v. Miller

Aproposed bill does not become a law upon legislative inaction or adjournment of Congress. A8c. Effectivity of Laws Tanada v. Tuvera Publication is indispensable for the validity of laws. Article 2 of the Civil Code- "Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." (As amended by EO 200) “unless otherwise provided by law” refers to the date of effectivity. What laws need to be published in Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation? *Laws of General Applicability *Important Laws

Judicial Notice- A doctrine of evidence applied by a court that allows the court to recognize and accept the existence of a particular fact commonly known by persons of average intelligence without establishing its existence by admitting evidence in a civil or criminal action.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987 “PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY”

A8d. Question Hour- Article VI, Section 22The 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.xxx

The provision is permissive.

President may or may not consent to appearance, may require that appearance to be in executive session.

Congress may refuse initiative by department secretary.

Section 22 establishes the rule for exercise of oversight function.

Oversight Function- enables Congress how passed laws are implemented. Congress evaluates the law whether it needs amendment or another law.

Exemption from summons apply only to Department heads and not everyone in Cabinet.

A8e. Legislative Investigation- Article VI, Section 21 The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Legislative investigation is the power to make investigation and exact testimony to exercise legislative functions advisedly and effectively. Arnault v. Nazareno Senate has the authority to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry, to compel him to give information- COERCIVE POWER.

Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Senate has authority to commit him for contempt for a term beyond its period of legislative session. Senate is a continuing body and which does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of .Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case. "Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt, assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable." Arnault v. Balagtas The continued confinement is valid. The confinement is not a punishment but merely to coerce Arnault into telling the truth. Limits on the Power of Legislative Investigation 1. Must be “in aid of legislation” In Begzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the Court ruled that the investigation was not “in aid of legislation” but merely tried to determine whether the relatives of Pres. Aquino violated the law. The case was also dismissed because the issue was already in court. Hence, the legislative investigation cannot be invoked, or the legislature cannot inquire. 2. Must be ” in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”

3. The rights of persons appearing in affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Senate v. Ermita Section 1 of EO 464 is valid. Under Section 22 of Article VI, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. However, Section 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, either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary. Section 2b is invalid because it enumerates persons. Executive privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information and not to categories of persons.. Sabio v. Gordon Section 4(b) of EO No. 15 is repealed by Sec. 21 of Article VI. The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch. Neri v. Senate What is executive privilege? It is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the public. What are the types of executive privilege? a. state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters) b. identity of government informers c. information related to pending investigations d. presidential communications e. deliberative process What are the types of executive privilege? a. state secrets (regarding military, diplomatic and other security matters) b. identity of government informers c. information related to pending investigations d. presidential communications e. deliberative process What is the type of executive privilege claimed in this case? The type of executive privilege claimed in this case is the

5 No member of the Commission shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or

administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.”

presidential communications privilege. Is there a presumption in favor of presidential communications? Yes. Presidential communications are “presumptively privileged”. It can be over be overcome by compelling need in the interest of justice. In this case, Senate committees have not adequately shown compelling need for the answers of the three questions. What are the elements of the presidential communications privilege? a. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power”. b. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President. c. The privilege is a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate or compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and that the information sought is unavailable elsewhere by an appropriate investigating agency. What are examples of “quintessential and non-delegable presidential powers” which are covered by the presidential communications privilege? *powers of the president as commander-in-chief (i.e., to call out the armed forces to suppress violence, to declare martial law, or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) *the power to appoint officials and remove them *the power to grant pardons and reprieves *the power to receive ambassadors *the power to negotiate treaties and to enter into execute agreements. Three Questions invoked by Neri to be an Executive Privilege “by Order of the President” a. Whether the President followed up on the NBN project? b. Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE? c. Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe? The three questions are presidential communication. Is executive privilege absolute? No. Any claim of executive privilege must be weighed against other interests recognized by the constitution, like the state policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest, the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, the accountability of public officers, the power of legislative inquiry, and the judicial power to secure evidence in deciding cases.

US v. Nixon 418 US 683 (1974) FACTS: US President Richard Nixon was included as an unindicted conspirator in a case with various offenses among which were conspiracy to defraud the US and obstruct justice in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. A subpoena duces tecum was issued upon the motion of special prosecutor to require the production of certain tapes, memoranda, papers, transcripts or other writing relating to certain precisely identified meetings. President’s counsel filed a motion to quash subpoena invoking the privilege of the President against disclosure of such information. Issue: Whether or not executive privilege can be invoked to cover a crime. HELD: No. The special prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify a subpoena. Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of presidential communication in the exercise of executive power, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communication can sustain absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. A9. Other Powers a. Act as board of canvassers for presidential election-Article VII, Section 4; Pimentel v. Joint Com. Article VII, Section 4 The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. Take note: When Congress act as national board of canvassers, it acts within its non-legislative powers.6 b. Call a special election for Presidency- Article VII, Section 10

6 Include power to canvass the presidential elections, to declare the existence of war, to give concurrence

to treaties and amnesties, to propose constitutional amendments and to impeach.

The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. c. Decide on disability of the president- Section 11, Article VII Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. d. Legislative veto- Section 27, Article VI; or extension for habeas corpus or declaration of martial law- Section 18, Article VII Section 27, Article VI.(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the

House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (2) 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. Section 18, Article VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In 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 it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

e. Presidential Amnesties- Section 19, Article VII Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. f. Concur in treaties- Section 21, Article VII No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. g. Declaration of existence of a state of war- Section 23(1) Article VI Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. h. Delegation of emergency powers- Section 23 (2) Article VI Section 23 (2) 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. i. Utilization of natural resources- Section 2(4) Article XII The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law xxx. j. Amendments of Constitution- Section 1 Article XVII Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention. k. Power of impeachment- Section 3 Article XI (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

B. Executive Department 1. The President a. Qualifications, election, term, and oath

Article VII, Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Article VII, Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter.

The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

Article VII, Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

b. Privileges and Salary Article VII, Section 6. 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.

-Republic v. Sandiganbayan Failure to submit Statement of Assets and Liabilities, it is presumed that his property and income are only those what he has earned during his term of office.

When is a property presumed to be unlawfully acquired (Sec. 2, R.A. 1379) (1) ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency, whether it be in his name or otherwise, and (2) the extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds, i. e., is grossly disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the public officer. (3) that the said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property.

c. Succession 1. In case of vacancy at the beginning of the term

Article VII, Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified. 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.

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President. Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where 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 a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.

The 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, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

2. In case of vacancy during term

Article VII, Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.

3. In case of temporary disability

Article VII, Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is

unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. -Estrada v. Arroyo It was said that there must be intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment

There is no formal requirement as to form of a valid resignation. 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. The Totality test may be used to determine whether or not the President has resigned or not.

d. Removal

Article XI, Section 2. 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.

e. Prohibitions

Article VII, Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Article IX, B, Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall 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.

f. Exceptions to prohibition from holding another office: 1. Vice-president as member of the cabinet

Article VII, Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.

2. Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial Bar Council Article VIII Section 8 (1)

A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated

Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

-Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

Sec. 7, Article IX-B, as a blanket prohibition, is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants.

-De La Cruz v. Commission on Audit

Sec. 13, Article VII applies even those who sit as alternates. Alternates cannot have a better right than their principals. -National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit Sec. 13, Article VII applies to agents, alternate, or representative of those mentioned in the said provision.

2. Powers and Functions of the President a. Executive Power

Article VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Source of residual power) -Marcos v. Manglapus The President possesses unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. -DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees The doctrine of qualified political agency is corollary to the control power of the President. He may delegate some of his powers to his cabinet members except in some situations where the Constitution solely provided its exercise only by him. He cannot be expected to exercise his control and supervisory powers all the time.

b. Control of Executive Departments

-Blaquera v. Alcala As the head of the government, the President has the power of control over executive departments. Through this power, he may review, modify, or nullify any action or decision of his subordinate in the executive departments.

-Hutchinson Ports v. SBMA As a chartered institution, the SBMA is always under the direct control of the Office of the President, particularly when contracts and/or projects undertaken by the SBMA entail substantial amounts of money. -National Electrification Administration v. Commission on Audit The presidential power of control over the executive branch of government extends to all executive employees from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk. NEA’s accelerated release of salary is not in accordance with the law because it is still requires the approval of the President.

c. General Supervision over Local Government Units/Autonomous Regions

Article II, Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. Article II, Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. Article X, Section 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions. Article X, Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. Article X, Section 6. Local government units shall have a just share, as determined by law, in the national taxes which shall be automatically released to them -Pimentel, Jr. v. Aguirre The President only exercises supervision over local governments and territorial and political subdivisions. The members of the Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter egos. As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President, at whose will and behest they can be removed from office; or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. In contrast, the heads of

political subdivisions are elected by the people. Their sovereign powers emanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. By constitutional fiat, they are subject to the President’s supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers Local government units also enjoy fiscal autonomy as well. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the Constitution.

d. Power of Appointments

Article VII, Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office. Article VII, Section 15. 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 appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Article VII, Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. For the lower courts, the President shall issued the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list. Article VIII, Section 8 (2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year. Article IX, B, Section 1 (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Article IX, C, Section 1 (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Article IX, Section 1 (2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, one Commissioner for five years, and the other Commissioner for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

Article XI, Section 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.

Distinction: (From Christian Saba’s Notes) a.Permanent v. Temporary: Permanent appointments are those extended to persons possessing the requisite eligibility and are thus protected by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. Temporary appointments are given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will and without the necessity of just cause or a valid investigation; made on the understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a permanent appointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a permanent choice is made. b.Regular v. ad interim: A regular appointment is one made by the President while the Congress is in session, takes effect only after confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, and once approved continues until the end of the term of the appointee. An ad interim appointment is one made by the President while the Congress is not in session, takes effect immediately, but ceases to be valid if disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or if not confirmed upon the next adjournment of Congress. Note: An ad interim appointment can be considered a permanent appointment. c. Ad Interim appointments v. appointments in an acting capacity: Ad Interim appointments are extended only during a recess of Congress, whereas acting appointments may be extended any time there is vacancy. Moreover, ad interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or rejection; acting appointments are not submitted to the Commission. -Bermudez v. Torrez The phrase "upon recommendation of the Secretary," found in Section 9, Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the Revised Administrative Code, is merely advisory in nature. An "appointment" to a public office is the unequivocal act of designating or selecting by one having the authority therefor of an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust. The appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with and its acceptance thereafter by the appointee in order to render it effective. Appointment necessarily calls for an exercise of discretion on the part of the appointing authority

-Sarmiento v. Mison These four (4) groups of appointments under Section 15, Article VII, to wit:

1. First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution;

2. Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;

3. Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;

4. Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. All appointments, excluding the 1st group, necessitate the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. -Concepcion-Bautista v. Salonga The President cannot confer power of confirmation over his appointments that are exclusively reserved by the Constitution to him only. Nor can the Commission on Appointments create power to confirm the appointments exclusively reserved to the President by the Constitution. Ad interim appointments extend only to appointments where the review of the Commission on Appointments is needed. They remain valid until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. -Calderon v. Carale Congress cannot, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of appointments extended by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII of the Constitution whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. -Manalo v. Sistoza The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine National Police. They do not fall under the first group of Sec. 16, Article VII. -Soriano v. Lista Philippine Coast Guards are not within the first group of Sec. 16, Article

VII. The clause “officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or

naval captain” refers to military officers alone.

-Pimentel v. Ermita The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature. It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office. Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the President the obligation to appoint automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego. An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent, holds a position of great trust and confidence. Congress cannot impose on the President who her alter ego should be. The office of a department secretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Since a department secretary is the alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office must necessarily have the President’s confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the office of a department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacity a person of her choice even while Congress is in session. That person may or may not be the permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make it expedient that the acting appointee will also be the permanent appointee. -De Castro v. JBC (Superseded In Re: Valenzuela) Section 9, Article VIII, exempts judicial appointments from the prohibition of Section 15, Article VII. -De Rama v. Court of Appeals Section 15, Article VII, applies only to presidential appointments. -Matibag v. Benipayo Ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The Constitution itself makes an ad interim appointment permanent in character by making it effective until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. An ad interim appointment enjoys security of tenure. While an ad interim appointment is permanent and irrevocable except as provided by law, an appointment or designation in a temporary or acting capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at the pleasure of the appointing power. A temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy any security of tenure, no matter how briefly. Under the second paragraph of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, the President can choose either of two modes in appointing officials who

are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. First, while Congress is in session, the President may nominate the prospective appointee, and pending consent of the Commission on Appointments, the nominee cannot qualify and assume office. Second, during the recess of Congress, the President may extend an ad interim appointment which allows the appointee to immediately qualify and assume office. An ad interim appointee disapproved by the Commission on Appointments can no longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final decision of the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority of the President The prohibition on reappointment in Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution applies neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad interim appointments. A disapproved ad interim appointment cannot be revived by another ad interim appointment because the disapproval is final under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and not because a reappointment is prohibited under Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. A by-passed ad interim appointment can be revived by a new ad interim appointment because there is no final disapproval under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and such new appointment will not result in the appointee serving beyond the fixed term of seven years. The phrase "without reappointment" applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, whether or not such person completes his term of office. There must be a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of the previous appointment before the prohibition on reappointment can apply. -Larin v. Executive Secretary The "power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint". It is conferred to the President by Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. However, this is not absolute because a valid appointee enjoys security of tenure and may only be remove through a just cause or administrative cause.

e. Executive Clemency

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. What does Executive Clemency include? (From Christian Saba’s Notes) 1. Reprieves- Postpones execution of punishment

2. Commutation- Remission of part of penalty 3. Pardon- The action of an executive official of the government that mitigates or sets aside the punishment for a crime. 4. Remit fines and forfeitures 5. Probation- A sentence whereby a convict is released from confinement but is still under court supervision; a testing or a trial period. Probation can be given in lieu of a prison term or can suspend a prison sentence if the convict has consistently demonstrated good behavior. 6. Parole- The conditional release of a person convicted of a crime prior to the expiration of that person's term of imprisonment, subject to both the supervision of the correctional authorities during the remainder of the term and a resumption of the imprisonment upon violation of the conditions imposed. 7. Amnesty- The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense—usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as Sedition or treason)—are granted Immunity from prosecution. Pardon distinguished from probation(From Christian Saba’s Notes) Pardon: official, private act of the president, not complete without acceptance. Removes penalties and legal disabilities. Probation: freedom with restriction for a limited period of time, chance to be free provided there is good behavior. Pardon distinguished from parole(From Christian Saba’s Notes) Parole: release after sentence is completed. During this period if there is proof of rehabilitation then there will be no further prison sentence Pardon distinguished from amnesty(From Christian Saba’s Notes) 1. Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. 2. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. 3. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense; abolished or forgives the punishment, but does not abolish civil liability while amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself as though he had committed no offense. 4. Amnesty is for political crimes; whereas pardon is for any crime 5. Pardon doesn’t restore right to hold public office and right of suffrage unless expressly restored by pardon. Amnesty does not affect such rights as the offender is treated as if he committed no crime at all.

-Vera v. People Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty. Where an amnesty proclamation imposes certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove the existence of such conditions. -Cristobal v. Labrador There are two limitations upon the exercise of this constitutional prerogative by the Chief Executive, namely: (a) that the power be exercised after convictions; and (b) that such power does not extend to cases of impeachment. The pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by legislative action An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from the convictions. -Pelobello v. Palatino Adopted the broad view decision of Cristobal v. Labrador -In Re: Lontok To exclude the petitioner from the practice of law for the offense would be to enforce a punishment for the offense, when he has already been pardoned for it. Where proceedings to strike an attorney's name from the rolls are founded on, and depend alone, on a statute making the fact of a conviction for a felony ground for disbarment, it has been held that a pardon operates to wipe out the conviction and is a bar to any proceeding for the disbarment of the attorney after the pardon has been granted. But where proceedings to disbar an attorney are founded on the professional misconduct involved in a transaction which has terminated in a conviction of felony, it has been held that while the effect of the pardon is to relieve him of the penal consequences of his act, it does not operate as a bar to the disbarment proceedings, inasmuch as the criminal acts may nevertheless constitute proof that the attorney does not possess a good moral character and is not a fit or proper person to retain his license to practice law.

-Torrez v. Gonzales The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

f. Commander-in-Chief

Article VII, Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In 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 it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

-IBP v. Zamora Section 18, Article VII embodies the powers of the President as the Commander-in-Chief. The full discretionary power of the President to determine the factual basis for the exercise of the calling out power is also implied and further reinforced therein. Under the said provisions, Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the President’s action to call out the armed forces. The only criterion to exercise the calling-out power is that “whenever it becomes necessary,” the President may call the armed forces “to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The implication is that the President is given full discretion and wide latitude in the exercise of the power to call. -Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary The purpose of exercising the calling out power of all armed forces the Constitution does not require the President to make a declaration of a state of rebellion. It only requires that it be necessary. Section 18, Article VII also does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a state of rebellion. Note that the Constitution vests the President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but, first and foremost, with Executive powers -Aquino v. Enrile The validity of a martial law proclamation and its continuation is political and non-justiciable in character. The test is not whether the President's decision is correct but whether, in suspending the writ, he did or did not act arbitrarily. -Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 4 As long as the civil courts in the land are open and functioning, military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them. Whether or not martial law has been proclaimed throughout the country or over a part thereof is of no moment. -Navales v. Abaya “Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law xxx who commit crimes xxx penalized under the Revised Penal Code xxx shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is

service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial.” -Lansang v. Garcia (From Christian Saba’s Notes) Judicial inquiry can go no further than to satisfy the Court not that the President’s decision is correct,” but that “the President did not act arbitrarily.” Thus, the standard laid down is not correctness, but arbitrariness. The grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. For the valid suspension of the privilege of the writ: (a) there must be "invasion, insurrection or rebellion"; and (b) public safety must require the aforementioned suspension. -In Re: De Villa The writ applies "to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a person has been deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person has been withheld from the person entitled thereto". -David v. Arroyo (From Christian Saba’s Notes) While the Court considered the President’s “calling-out” power as a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that “this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.”

g. Emergency Powers

Article VI, Section 23 (1) 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. Article XII, Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

h. Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans

Article VII, Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior

concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law. -Constantino v. Cuisia Article VII, Section 20 allows the President to contract and guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that the loans must be subject to limitations provided by law.

i. Foreign Affairs

Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. -People’s Movement for Press Freedom v. Hon. Raul Manglapus -Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading Executive Agreements may be validly entered into by the President without the need of concurrence of the Senate. Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two thirds of the Senate. Executive agreements become binding through executive -Go Tek v. Deportation Board It has been held that the Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts which warrant the deportation of aliens as disclosed in an investigation conducted in accordance with. No other tribunal is at liberty to reexamine or to controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted.

j. Legislation 1. Address Congress

Article VII, Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

2. Preparation and submission of the budget

Article VII, Section 22. 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.

3. Veto-Power

Article VI, Section 27. Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

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.

4. Emergency Powers

Article VI, Section 23 (1) 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.

k. Immunity from Suit

-Soliven v. Makasiar The President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. -Gloria v. Court of Appeals The doctrine of presidential immunity has no application where the petition for prohibition is directed not against the President himself but against his subordinates. Furthermore, presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts where there is grave abuse of discretion or that the President acted without or in excess of jurisdiction

3. Vice-Presidential a. Qualifications, election, term, and oath b. Privileges and Salary c. Prohibitions d. Succession (SAME WITH THE PRESIDENT)

Article VII, Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation. Article VII, Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, 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 Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

C. The Judicial Department 1. The Judicial Power

Article VIII, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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.

-This gives the Supreme Court two powers: 1.) Duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 2.) 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.

2. The Supreme Court a. Composition and b. Mode of Sitting Article VIII, Section 4.

The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

-MMDA v. Jancom

The Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed. A decision of a Division of the Court is a decision of the Supreme Court.

-People v. Gacott The power to discipline members may be decided by a Division.

A decision en banc is needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than 1 year or a fine exceeding P10, 000.00 or both. (From Christian Saba’s Notes)

c. Appointment and Qualifications

Article VIII, Section 4(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

Article VIII, Section 7. 1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any

lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower

courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,

integrity, probity, and independence.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list.

d. No Non-judicial Work for Judges

Article VII, Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

-Meralco v. Pasay Trans Co.

The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions.

They cannot sit as a board of arbitrators and perform such functions. -Garcia v. Macaraig

The Court looks with disfavor at the practice of long standing to be sure, of judges being detailed in the Department of Justice to assist the Secretary

even if it were only in connection with his work of exercising administrative authority over the courts.

e. Salary

Article VIII, Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During the continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased. -Nitafan v. Comelec The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general income tax law applicable to all income earners and that the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges does not fall within the constitutional protection against decrease of their salaries during their continuance in office.

f. Tenure

Article VIII, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in thereon.

g. Removal

Article XI, Section 2. 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.

-In Re: Gonzales A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.

A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the incumbency of such public officer.

h. Fiscal Autonomy

Article VIII, Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. 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.

i. Jurisdiction

Article VIII, Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and 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. Article VIII, Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof. No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members. Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

1. 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:

2. 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.

a. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.

b. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in

issue.

c. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

d. All cases in which only an error or question of law is

involved.

e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

-Santiago v. Bautista The "committee on the ratings of students for honor" whose actions are here condemned by appellant is not the "tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions" against which an action for certiorari may lie under Section 1 of Rule 65. In order that a special civil action of certiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction the following circumstances must exist: (1) that there must be a specific controversy brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their respective rights and obligations. (2) the tribunal, board or officer before whom the controversy is brought must have the power and authority to pronounce judgment and render a decision on the controversy brought before it. (3) the tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of the sovereign power which belongs to the judiciary, or at least, which does not belong to the legislative or executive department. -Felipe v. Leuterio It should not be a mere privilege. There must be a ‘wrong’ suffered by a person. Wrong" as used in the aforesaid legal principle is the deprivation or violation of a right. As stated before, a contestant has no right to the prize unless and until he or she is declared winner by the board of referees or judges.

j. Deliberations

Article VIII, Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case the case assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate court. -Prudential Bank v. Castro Resolutions/decisions of the Court in administrative cases have not been accompanied by any formal certification; only in judicial decisions But even if such a certification were required, it is beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after consultation and deliberation. The signatures of the members who actually took part in the deliberations and voted attest to that. Besides, being a per curiam decision, or an opinion of the Court as a whole, there is no ponente although any member of the Court may be assigned to write the draft. In such cases, a formal certification is obviously not required.

-Consing v. Court of Appeals

The lack of certification at the end of the decision would only serve as evidence of failure to observe the certification requirement and may be basis for holding the official responsible for the omission to account therefor. Such absence of certification would not have the effect of invalidating the decision.

k. Voting

Article VIII, Section 4.

1. The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

2. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or

executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of

the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

3. Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved

with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

-Cruz v. DENR As the votes were equally divided (7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained, the case was redeliberated upon. However, after redeliberation, the voting remained the same. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is DISMISSED and the law is declared CONSTITUTIONAL.

l. Requirement as to Decisions

Article VIII, Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore. -Valldaolid v. Inciong The requirement applies to decisions of Courts only. -Nunal v. COA A "Resolution" is not a "Decision" within the meaning of the Constitutional requirement. This mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for decision," i.e., given due course and after the filing of Briefs or Memoranda and/or other pleadings, as the case may be. It is not applicable to an Order or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition for Certiorari -People v. Bugarin The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based serves many functions. It is intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the reason or reasons for the decision so that if any

of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate court the findings of facts or the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dexit.

-Hernandez v. Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals did not deem it necessary to make a separate finding of facts for said assigned errors, because they were just the necessary consequences of the previous, assigned errors.

The constitutional mandate only requires that the decision should state the facts on which it is based. There is no proscription made in the briefs or memoranda. -Yao v. Court of Appeals A decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issue for resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be pointless – while brevity in the writing of decision is an admirable trait, it should not and cannot be substituted for substance. -Dion c. Judge Lopez A "sin perjuicio" judgment, which is a judgment without a statement of the facts in support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by the final judgment. The Supreme Court already expressed its disapproval of the practice of rendering "sin perjuicio" judgments. -Asiavest v. Court of Appeals No sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction.

A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.

m. Petition for Review with Motion for Reconsideration

Article VIII, Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefore.

-Tichangco v. Enriquez Certiorari under Rule 65 involves a correction of errors of jurisdiction only, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for an appeal, when the latter remedy is available. -Fr. Martinez v. Court of Appeals The requirement under Article VIII, Section 14 was fully complied with when the Court of Appeals, in denying reconsideration of its decision, stated in its resolution that it found no reason to change its ruling because petitioner had not raised anything new.

n. Periods for Deciding Cases

Article VIII, Section 15. 1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must

be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.

4. Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.

-Re: Delays in the Sandiganbayan Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.

Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution, "Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court." Pursuant to P.D. 1606, the law creating the Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to it.

o. Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4(7).The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

p. Administrative Powers

1. Supervision of Lower Courts

Article VIII, Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. -In Re: Demetria The Supreme Court ordered Justice Demetria DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution.

2. Temporarily Assign Judges to other station in Public Interest

Article VIII, Section 5(3). 3. 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.

3. Order a Change of Venue or Place of Trial to avoid miscarriage of Justice

Article VIII, 5(4). 4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

-People v. Pilotin

Present hostile sentiment against the accused at the place of trial is a justification for transfer of venue.

The change of venue involves not merely the change of the place of hearing but also the transfer of the expediente of the case to another court. -Mondiguing v. Abad A change of venue was ordered by this Court in a case where it was shown that the accused might be liquidated by his enemies in the place where the trial was originally scheduled to be held -People v. Sola There may be cases where the fear, objectively viewed, may, to some individuals, be less than terrifying, but the question must always be the effect it has on the witnesses who will testify. The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.

4. Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary

Article VIII, Section 5(6). 6. Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

5. Promulgate Rules concerning the enforcement and protection of constitutional rights. 6. Promulgate Rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure 7. Admission to the Practice of law 8. Integration of the Bar 9. Legal assistance to the Underprivileged

Article VIII, Section 5(5). 5. 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. Writ of Habeas corpus- is a summons with the force of a court order, addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) demanding that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine if the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. Writ of Amparo- a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers existing extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Writ of Habeas Data- is designed to protect, by means of an individual complaint presented to a constitutional court, the image, privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person.Habeas Data can be brought up by any citizen against any manual or automated data register to find out what information is held about his or her person. That person can request the rectification, actualisation or even the destruction of the personal data held. Writ of Kalikasan – a special civil action akin to the Writ of Amparo but protects one’s right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights.

-Zaldivar v. Gonzales

The Court has two related powers: the inherent power to discipline attorneys and the contempt power. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader than the power to punish for contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and non-lawyers, both in and out of court. Frequently, where the contemnor is a lawyer, the contumacious conduct also constitutes professional misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. Where the respondent is a lawyer, however, the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers may come into play whether or not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also constitutes contempt of court. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A

lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting application of the contempt power.

-In Re: Cunanan

The Constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal equal responsibility concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the Constitution recognizes continue to reside in this Court. Had Congress found that this Court has not promulgated any rule on the matter, it would have nothing over which to exercise the power granted to it. Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by this Court, but the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law and their supervision remain vested in the Supreme Court. -Aguirre v. Rana The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. -In Re: Edillon To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration

actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar requiring members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration. . -In Re: IBP Elections Bar Mattter No. 491 Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The respondent violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws.

q. Report on the Judiciary

Article VIII, Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary.

3. Lower Courts

a. Qualifications and Appointment

Article VIII, Section 7. 1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any

lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower

courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,

integrity, probity, and independence.

Article VIII, Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees preferred by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation. For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list.

b. Tenure

Article VIII, Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted in thereon.

-De La Llana v. Alba (From Christian Saba’s Notes)

Congress can abolish the positions in the lower courts but not the Supreme Court.

4. The Judicial and Bar Council Article VIII, Section 8.

1. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

2. The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the

President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

3. The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the

Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

4. The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.

5. The Council 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.

5. Automatic Release of appropriations for the Judiciary

Article VIII, Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. 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.