Political Law 1 Page 1

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER Prelims

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Constitution: Parts of a Written Constitution Constitution of Government- outlines the organization and structure of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate. Constitution of Liberty- series of prescriptions setting forth fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and the limitation of the powers of the government to ensure the enjoyment of such rights. Constitution of Sovereignty- points out the procedure or mode by which the fundamental law may be formally changed Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Provisions Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS Self-executing provisions- complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of operating and enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected -by its language, does not require any legislation for it to become effective Non-self-executing provisions- lays down a general principle, remains dormant unless it is activated by legislative implementation In case of doubt, the constitution should be considered as self-executing Tañada vs Angara Article II of the Constitution by its name, “Declaration of Principles and State Policies”, are not intended to be self-executing provisions ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or guides in the exercise of power of judicial review. Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality of a Law *Before a law is declared unconstitutional, it enjoys the presumption of constitutionality Orthodox View- an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed. It is therefore stricken in statute books and considered to have never existed at all. All persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to apply it in subsequent cases. Modern View- does not annul or repeal the stature if it finds it I conflict with the constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence. The decision affects the parties only and there is no judgment as to the statute.

Orthodox Modern

Status of the Statute

Stricken in statute books, null and void

Simply ignored or unrecognized

Persons bound

Everyone Parties involved

Effects in Court

Not permitted to apply it in subsequent cases

May operate as precedent for the determination of other cases

Amendments or Revisions Modes of Proposing Amendments or Revisions 1. 2/3 vote of all the members of the Congress as a Constituent Assembly 2. Constitutional Convention 3. People’s initiative(amendments only) Amendment- a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision- a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution Stages of Amendment or Revisions

1. Proposal 2. Ratification through plebiscite Revision tests(Lambino vs COMELEC) Quantitative Test- changes the substantial entirety of the constitution by deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions. Qualitative Test- changes that accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision. Constitutional Convention 1. 2/3 votes of all the members of the Congress 2. Majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention Santiago vs COMELEC People’s Initiative on the Constitution Sec 2, Art XVII: 12% of the registered voters where every legislative district is represented by 3% of its registered voters. The Congress will provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The law only deals with the amendments and revisions of national and local laws. It did not contemplate the amendments to be done in the constitution through initiative. The insertion of initiative on amendments of the Constitution is clearly an afterthought. Likewise, the provision in the said Act is unconstitutional since the action through People’s initiative is only amendments in the Constitution. The State Distinguish a State from a Nation State is a legal concept whereas a nation is a racial or ethnic concept. Examples: USA- one state, many nations Arab Nation- many states, one nation Palestinians- nation without territory State- a community of persons, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, having an independent government to which a great body of inhabitants renders habitual obedience. Elements of a State 1. People 2. Territory 3. Government 4. Sovereignty People- numerous enough to be self-sufficient - small enough to be easily administered - both sexes to facilitate procreation Territory- consists of the portion of the surface of the globe on which the State settles, covering not only land, but the atmosphere as well. Modes of acquiring territory a. Discovery and occupation b. Prescription c. Cession d. Conquest e. Accretion Government- agency through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized. -Principal: State, Agent: Government -Acts of the agent are deemed to be the acts of the principal -Mandate: Promote the welfare of the people -Only beneficial acts are attributed to the State Kinds of Government as to Creation a. De Jure- legitimate and lawful government established by authority of the legitimate sovereign powers b. De Facto- existence maintained by force -may be through revolution, paramount force, secession

Political Law 1 Page 2

Functions of the Government a. Constituent- compulsory, very bonds of society cannot be abrogated -ex: punishment of crimes, justice, determination of contracts, fixing relationship between families… b. Ministrant- undertaken to advance the general interest of society - ex: public works, agrarian reform, public charity *Distinction is blurred because of repudiation of the laissez-faire policy or the “Let alone policy”. These functions while traditionally regarded as merely ministrant and optional, have been made compulsory by the Constitution. Sovereignty- supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which the state is governed. Kinds of Sovereignty a. Legal- the power to issue final commands b. Political- power behind the legal sovereign c. Internal- power of the State to govern domestic affairs d. External- power of the State to direct its relations with other states - Independence Characteristics of Sovereignty a. Permanence b. Exclusivity c. Comprehensiveness d. Absoluteness e. Individuality f. Inalienability g. Imprescriptibility *In the course of Philippine history, when the Treaty of Paris was executed on December 10, 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the USA thereby transferring the sovereignty from Spain to the USA. *There was no transfer of sovereignty when the Japanese occupied the Philippines. The Japanese government were merely doing acts of sovereignty for there was no formal transfer of sovereignty. Effects of Changes in Sovereignty(Spain- USA) -Political laws are abrogated for there is a change in the relationship between the ruler and the ruled -Non-political laws are still in operation for they merely regulate the relationship between private individuals. (USA-JAPAN) -Japan was only doing acts of sovereignty -Political laws were merely suspended subject to revival upon the end of occupation by virtue of Jus Postliminii(the right to claim property after recapture) -Non-political laws are still in operation Judicial Decisions -For cases decided which were of non-political complexion are still valid upon the return of the sovereign power Ruffy vs Chief of Staff -Suspension of political laws only apply to civilians -Military officials are still governed by the National Defense Act and the Articles of War Laurel vs Misa -Suspension of political laws do not apply to treason although treason is a species of international law -Treason is still punishable under the Revised Penal Code Is the Vatican a State? The Holy See vs Judge Rosario, Jr. Italy and the Holy See signed the Lateran Treaty wherein Italy recognizes the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See in the Vatican City. This treaty established the statehood of Vatican City. The

normal definition of the State does not apply with the Vatican City since its purpose is entirely different from other states. The world-wide interests and activities of the Vatican City are such as to make it in a sense an “international state”. The treatment other states give to the Vatican City also reinforces its statehood. The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign by how we treat him. The Concept of an Associated State The Province of North Cotabato vs The Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel Association- formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links wherein one state the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal while maintaining its international status as a state. It is also a transitional device of former colonies on their way to full independence The MOA-AD describes the relationship between the Central Government(Government of the Philippines) and the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity as associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility. Since the MOA-AD used the concept of associated state and included international law instruments, the international law definition of an associated state shall apply. The present constitution does not recognize the concept of association. The only state which the Constitution recognizes is the Philippine State. This concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution. Is Sovereignty really absolute? Tañada vs Angara No. Sovereignty is only deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level. It is however subject to the restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. Treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. Nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits. A portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the constitution based on Sec 2, Art II of the Constitution itself. The National Territory Art 1 The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. Archipelagic Doctrine- emphasizes the unity of the land and waters or a body of water studded with islands Straight Baseline Method- requires that baselines be drawn by the outermost points of the outermost islands of the archipelago Components of a National Territory a. Terrestrial or Land Domain b. Maritime Domain c. Aerial Domain Terrestrial or Land Domain- includes all the lands and the internal waters(rivers, lakes, ports, harbors…) Right of Innocent Passage- right of continuous and expeditious navigation of a foreign ship through the TERRITORIAL SEA of a state for the purpose of traversing that sea without entering the internal waters. Right of Transit Passage- similar to right of innocent passage but may only be invoked when traversing a strait Maritime Domain

Political Law 1 Page 3

a. Territorial Sea- 12 nautical miles b. Contiguous Zone- 24 nautical miles c. Exclusive Economic Zone d. Continental Shelf e. High Seas Aerial Domain- the airspace above the land and maritime domain of the state -no right of innocent passage may be invoked Spratlys Group of Islands and Scarborough Shoal -Although they are not part of the Philippine Archipelago, they are still part of the National Territory of the Philippines. To include Spratlys islands into the archipelagic baselines of the country would be a direct violation of UNCLOS III which the Philippines is a signatory. Scarborough Shoal -Shoal: sand deposit or shallow portion of a river or seas visible only during low tide -Near the coast of Masinloc, Zambales(124 nautical miles) and within the 200 miles exclusive economic zone Spratlys Islands -discovered by Tomas Cloma in the 1950s -formerly known as the Republic of Cloma -considered as Terranullius or belonging to no one -surrendered to President Marcos -PD 1596: Kalayaan Islands under the province of Palawan -Philippines has occupied the largest island-Pag-asa and holds elections in the area Doctrine of Effective Occupation -discovery is not enough -inchoate right only for discovery over the territory -discovery must be followed by effective occupation during a reasonable time Fundamental Principles and State Policies Sec 1: Democratic and Republican State Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Democracy- a government for, of and by the people -participation in government through; suffrage, plebiscite, initiative and referendum, and recall Republicanism- representatives and renovation a. Government of laws, not men b. Periodic elections c. Separation of powers and checks and balances d. Legislature cannot enact irrepealable laws Characteristics of Public Office in a Democratic and Republican State 1. A public trust 2. Not a hereditable possession 3. Outside the commerce of man 4. Not a property Impeachment The following are subject to impeachment 1. President 2. Vice-President 3. Justices of the Supreme Court 4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions 5. Ombudsman Grounds for Impeachment 1. Culpable violation of the Constitution 2. Treason 3. Bribery(RA 3019) 4. Graft and Corruption 5. Other High crimes

6. Betrayal of Public Trust Limitation: No impeachment proceedings hall be initiated against the same official more than once within the period of one year. Forum: The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment Procedure for Impeachment A. Initiation Stage- determines whether there is a prima facie against the officer that merits a full blown trial in the Senate 1. If initiated by less than 1/3 of the House of Representatives a. A verified complaint for impeachment is filed with the House of Representatives by (1) a member of the House or (2) any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member of the House. b. The complaint must be included in the Order of Business within 10 session days upon receipt thereof. c. Not later than 3 session days after, including the complaint in the Order of Business, it must be referred (by the Speaker) to the proper Committee(usually, the Committee on Justice and Order) d. The Committee has 60 session days from receipt of the referral to conduct hearings to see if there is probable cause, to vote by an absolute majority, and to submit report and its resolution to the House. e. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration and general discussion by the House within 10 session days from the receipt thereof. f. After discussion, a vote is taken, with the vote of each member recorded. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House is needed to “affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or to override its contrary resolution” *If favorable- 1/3 needed to approve such recommendation *If unfavorable- 1/3 needed to disapprove or override this report 2. If initiated by 1/3 of the House of Representatives * If the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least 1/3 of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed *This means that the entire process is cut short. There is no need for a Committee report and discussion anymore, since the end result is that 1/3 of the members of the House have decided to send the case for trial. B. Trial Stage 1. The Articles of Impeachment of the Committee is forwarded to the Senate, which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment for trial. 2. When sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment case, the Senators shall be on oath or affirma tion. 3. As a general rule, the President of the Senate presides over an impeachment trial. But when it is the President of the Philippines who is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be the presiding officer, but he shall not vote. 4. To carry out a conviction, the vote of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate(16) is required. If less than 2/3 vote that the officer is guilty, the effect is acquittal. 5. The judgment of the Senate is a political question that cannot be reviewed by the Court Effect of the Impeachment a. Removal from office of the official concerned b. Disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines c. Officer still liable to prosecution, trial, and punishment if the impeachable offense committed also constitutes a felony or crime. Sec 2: War and International Laws Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. Doctrine of Incorporation- rules of international law form part of the laws of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

Political Law 1 Page 4

Only aggressive war is prohibited under Sec 2 , Art II The Philippines adherence to the Doctrine of Incorporation in International Law Doctrine of Equality of All States- one State cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would “unduly vex the peace of nations” Pacta Sunt Servanda- International agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation of parties. A state which has contracted a valid international obligation is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure fulfillment of the obligation undertaken. The Right to self-determination of Peoples Internal self-determination- a people's pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. External self-determination- which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances. The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by apeople constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people. Yogyakarta Principles The Yogyakarta Principles which the petitioner invoked is a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, intended to address documented evidence of abuse of rights of LGBTs. (See footnote number 52, pg 77) Some norms contained in these set of principles are not obligatory in the Philippines although being part of International law. The said principles do not reflect the current status of international law. These principles may be considered as “soft law” which is an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior. Civilian Supremacy Clause Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. Sec 3: Civilian Supremacy Ensured by: a. AFP Chief- President b. AFP’s oath to uphold constitution c. professionalization of military d. insulation of AFP from politics e. prohibition to hold civil position f. compulsory retirement g. 3 yr limitation of Chief of Staff h. Professional recruitment i. Police force under executive management IBP vs Zamora The deployment of the Philippine Marines in the conduct of joint visibility patrols does not constitute a breach of civilian supremacy. For a breach of the civilian supremacy be established there must be am exercise of regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory military power. Moreover, the local police force is in charge of the said operation. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

Art 2, Sec 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Oposa vs Factoran The right to a balanced and healthful ecology does not belong to the bill of rights for it is of a different category. While the Bill of Rights enumerates civil and political rights, Sec 16 states a right to self-preservation and self-perpetuation. “As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind”

“…imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”

The Filipino First Policy Art 12, Sec 16, 2nd par. “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.” Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS National Economy and Patrimony not only involves natural resources but also the cultural heritage of the country. Manila Hotel, as an historical landmark, belongs to the National Patrimony of the State. “For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and management of the hotel.” Academic Freedom of Institutions of Higher Learning Art 14, Sec 5, 2nd par Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. Miriam College Foundation, Inc VS CA This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed are the ff; a. Who may teach b. What may be taught c. How it shall be taught d. Who may be admitted to study The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in the third freedom. Likewise in the “who may be admitted to study” contains the right to determine whom to exclude or expel. University of San Agustin vs CA Since a contract creates reciprocal rights and obligations, the obligation of the school to educate a student would imply a corresponding obligation on the part of student to study and obey the rules and regulations of the school. They school is also afforded ample discretion to formulate reasonable rules and regulations in the admission of students, including setting academic standards. Isabelo, Jr. vs Perpetual College of Rizal, Inc. Academic Freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged license. The punishment of expulsion appears to us rather disproportionate to his having had deficiencies in his CMT course. UP Board of Regents vs CA The academic freedom of a university does not terminate upon the graduation of a student, for it is precisely the graduation of the student which is in question. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved. The pursuit of academic excellence is the university’s concern. It

Political Law 1 Page 5

should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity. The Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit BASIS: Constitution: Art 16, Sec 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. Positivist Theory: There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. Sociological Theory: If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing its other functions Waiver of State Immunity Department of Agriculture vs NLRC The State may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. “There can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law which the right depends.” It is also called the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. Moreover, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstavle to the performance of its multifarious functions would be far greater in severity than the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, if such fundamental principle is to be abandoned. Express Consent- made through a general or special law. - ex: Act 3083: monetary claims arising from a contract - PD 1445: all monetary claims must be first brought to the Commission on Audit Implied Consent- when the State itself commences the litigation -when it enters into a contract; jure gestionis Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability. Suability vs Liability of the State Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable. In the Matter of Execution to Satisfy Judgment against the State The waiver of State immunity extends only to the rendition of judgment. When it comes to the execution of judgment, another waiver is required. Otherwise, the government will be paralyzed in performing its function.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER Finals

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Doctrine of Separation of Powers In essence, separation of powers means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of others. Purpose: Intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. -intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and to obtain efficiency. Principle of Checks and Balances One department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments. The Constitution fixes certain limits on the independence of each department. In order that these limits may be observed, the Constitution gives each department certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the other from exceeding their authority. A system of checks and balances is thus formed. To carry out the system of checks and balances, the Constitution provides: 1. The acts of the legislative department have to be presented to the executive for approval or disapproval. 2. The executive department may veto the acts of the legislature if in its judgment they are not in conformity with the Constitution or are detrimental to the interests of the people. 3. The courts are authorized to determine the validity of legislative measures or executive acts. 4. Through its pardoning power, the executive may modify or set aside the judgments of the courts. 5. The legislature may pass laws that in effect amend or completely revoke decisions of the courts if in its judgment they are not in harmony with its intention or policy which is not contrary to the Constitution. 6. President must obtain the concurrence of Congress to complete certain significant acts. 7. Money can be released from the treasury only by authority of Congress Principle of Non-Delegation of Powers What has been delegated cannot be delegated. It is based on upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. Permissible Delegation 1. Delegation of tariff powers of the President 2. Delegation of emergency powers to the President 3. Delegation to the people at large 4. Delegation to local governments 5. Delegation to administrative bodies Delegation of Emergency Powers The conditions for the vesture of emergency powers in the President are the following: 1. There must be war or other national emergency. 2. The delegation must be for a limited time only. 3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe. 4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress Delegation to Local Governments It is based on the recognition that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters purely of local concern and are therefore in a better position to enact the necessary and appropriate legislation thereon. It is a grant of authority to prescribe local regulations, according to the immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity. Test of a Valid Delegation of Powers

Political Law 1 Page 6

It is valid only if the law; 1. Complete in itself- setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate 2. Fixes a standard- the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable-to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Legislative Power- power to enact, repeal and amend laws -“gap of the law”: only remedy is to amend the law -judicial legislation: must be for the interpretation of the law only. It cannot repeal laws -not solely vested to the Congress( House of Representatives and Senate) -some legislative power is given to the people through initiative and referendum( RA 6735) Other Powers of the Congress 1. Electoral Tribunal 2. Impeachment Court 3. Board of Canvassers 4. Constituent Assembly 5. Declaration of the Existence of War 6. Commission of Appointments Bicameral Conference Committee- mechanism of consolidating conflicting bills of the House of Representatives and the Senate -By the nature of its function, it is capable of producing results that may go beyond its mandate and power. -“Third House of Congress” Joint Oversight Committee a. Scrutiny b. Investigation c. Supervision Scrutiny a. Budget Hearings b. Question Hour c. Confirmation Budget Hearings- Congress shall scrutinize the budget as proposed by the Department of Budget Management. -The President proposes the budget to the Congress who shall appropriate it. Question Hour (Sec 22, Art VI)- borrowed concept from the Parliamentary form of government -Heads of Departments may be questioned on matters regarding their departments Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Confirmation- Commission of Appointments composed of the members of the Congress who shall scrutinize the qualifications and merits of the appointees of the President Investigation (Sec 21, Art 6)- Inquires on the aid of legislation -Intrinsic to the grant of legislative powers -Congress needs information to effectively legislate laws Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. Supervision- Delegation to administrative bodies of quasi-legislative power -To implement a law -Before such IRR to take effect, it shall be approved by a joint oversight committee or the Congress -Legislative Veto: disapproval of a proposed IRR by the Congress

Qualifications of the Members of Congress Common Qualifications: President, Vice President, Senators, Representatives 1. Natural Born Citizens 2. Able to read and write 3. Registered Voter Age Requirement 40- President and Vice President on the day of elections 35- Senators 25- House of Representatives Residency Requirement 10 years- President 2 years- Senator 1 year- in the district Composition of the House of Representatives Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, -functus officio(inoperative for it has served its purpose) -because as of today, there are more than 250 congressmen SEMA vs COMELEC -Creation of a province entails the creation of a legislative district -Only the Congress can create a legislative district -The creation of a legislative district cannot be delegated to a lower legislative body Creation of a Local Government Unit 1. In accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code 2. Ratified through a plebiscite 3. Should not contravene the Constitution Party-List System Formula No. of district representatives ________________________ x .2 = No. of party-list representatives .8 -Borrowed concept from the Parliament system -Purpose: Appropriate representation for the marginalized sectors of society in the law making body -Social justice tool -RA 7941: Party-list law Bagong Bayani OFW vs COMELEC “Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power.” “The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens, 1. Who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and 2. Who lack well-defined constituencies; but 3. Who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. "Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals."

Political Law 1 Page 7

Guidelines for screening Party-List Participants 1) The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other words, it must show – through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record – that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interest, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors. 2) 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.” In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. 3) In view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. x x x Furthermore, the Constitution provides that “religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.” (Sec. 2 [5], Article IX [C]) The prohibition was explained by a member of the Constitutional Commission in this wise: “*T+he prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here against a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.” 4) A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows: a) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes; b) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; c) It is a foreign party or organization; d) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; e) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections; f) It declares untruthful statements in its petition; g) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or h) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it had registered.” Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations. These laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system seeks to “enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become members of the House of Representatives.” A party or organization, therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified. 5) 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. It must be independent of the government. The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable

citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organization to be elected to the House of Representatives. 6) The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must likewise do so. x x x 7) Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens “who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties.” Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine representation to the marginalized and underrepresented. 8) 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. x x x Immunities and Privileges of Members of Congress Section 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. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. People vs Jalosjos The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members of the House of Representatives x x x arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. The Incompatible Office and Forbidden Office with respect to members of the Congress 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. Appearing as counsels in Court and Electoral Tribunals Section 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. The Bodies that are attached to the Congress Commission on Appointments SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve

Political Law 1 Page 8

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. Electoral Tribunals in Congress 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 and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. The Power of each House of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. Bengson vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. The power to conduct formal inquiries or investigations is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone. As held in Jean L. Aznault vs. Leon Nazareno, et al., the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member. Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the Senate may refer to any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed by any Senator which in its judgment requires an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In order therefore to ascertain the character or nature of an inquiry, resort must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is proposed to be made. The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that over-balances any private rights affected. To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that the Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly. Standard Charter Bank vs Senate Committee on Banks Indeed, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative

inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an administrative investigation. Legislative Contempt Arnault vs Nazareno No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before either House unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire. 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 the subject of the inquiry, subject of the course to his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The materiality of a question that it may be propounded to a witness is determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation. AUTHORITY OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS TO COMMIT A WITNESS FOR CONTEMPT BEYOND PERIOD OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION. — There is no sound reason to limit the power of the legislative body to punish for contempt to the end of every session and not to the end of the last session terminating the existence of that body. While the existence of the House of Representatives is limited to four years, that of the Senate is not so limited. The Senate is a continuing body which does not ceases 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. The Law Making Process (Siguro naman alam mo na yan no! Refer to statcon book.) The Bills that are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives A- Appropriation Bills P- Private Bills R- Revenue Bills I- Increase in Public Debt L- Local Bills Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance On the bills that must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws. To begin with, it is not the law — but the revenue bill — which is required by the Constitution to "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. The possibility of a third version by the conference committee will be discussed later. At this point, what is important to note is that, as a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a revenue statute — and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law — must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate's power not only to "concur with amendments" but also to " propose amendments." It would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. On How to Pass a Bill The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate

Political Law 1 Page 9

enactment, etc." in Art. VI, § 26(2) qualified the two stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and distributed three days before it is finally approved. In other words, the "unless" clause must be read in relation to the "except" clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same sentence. To construe the "except" clause as simply dispensing with the second requirement in the "unless" clause (i.e., printing and distribution three days before final approval) would not only violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate the very premise of the "except" clause: the necessity of securing the immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a public calamity or emergency. For if it is only the printing that is dispensed with by presidential certification, the time saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in insuring immediate enactment. It may well be doubted whether doing away with the necessity of printing and distributing copies of the bill three days before the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a law in the face of an emergency requiring the calling of a special election for President and Vice-President. Under the Constitution such a law is required to be made within seven days of the convening of Congress in emergency session. That upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of three readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative practice. One Subject One Title Rule Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. De Guzman vs COMELEC The objectives of Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, that "[e]very bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof", are: 1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no information, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and 3. To fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire. Section 26(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is sufficiently complied with where, as in this case, the title is comprehensive enough to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are related and germane to the subject matter embodied in the title or so long as the same are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. Enrolled Bill Doctrine Arroyo vs De Venecia Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. Bill No. 7189 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. x x x To be sure, there is no claim either here or in the decision in the EVAT cases (Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance) that the enrolled bill embodies a conclusive presumption. In one case (Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 *1974+) we “went behind” an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to determine whether certain provisions of a statute had been approved by the Senate. But, whereas here there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court will respect the certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed. Under this rule, this Court has refused to determine claims that the three-fourths vote needed to pass a proposed amendment to the Constitution had not been obtained, because “a duly

authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts.” x x x The enrolled bill doctrine, as a rule of evidence, is well-established. It is cited with approval by text writers here and abroad. The enrolled bill rule rests on the following considerations: X x x. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the court to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution. The Presidential Veto Section 27. (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. Gonzales vs Macaraig Paragraph (1) refers to the general veto power of the President and if exercised would result in the veto of the entire bill, as a general rule. Paragraph (2) is what is referred to as the item-veto power or the line-veto power. It allows the exercise of the veto over a particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. As specified, the President may not veto less than all of an item of an Appropriations Bill. In other words, the power given the executive to disapprove any item or items in an Appropriations Bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision Gonzales vs Macaraig Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the Appropriations Bill should relate specifically to some " particular appropriation" therein. The challenged "provisions" fall short of this requirement. Firstly, the vetoed "provisions" do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. Secondly, the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be found on the face of the Bill. Consequently, Section 55 (FY '89) and Section 16 (FY '90) although labelled as "provisions," are actually inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of the President's veto power. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice declared "that an 'item' of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill. PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

Political Law 1 Page 10

As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can include in an appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates," it follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is considered "an inappropriate provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be included in the category of "inappropriate provisions" are unconstitutional provisions and provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kind of laws have no place in an appropriations bill.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT The Faithful Execution Clause Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency All executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. The Powers of the President The appointing power 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. Limitations on the Appointing power of the President (1)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. (2) 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. Valenzuela vs Vallarta Section 15, Article VII is directed against two types of appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made for partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within two months preceding the Presidential election and are similar to those which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code; while the second consists of the so-called “midnight” appointments. The SC in clarified this when it held:

“Section 15, Article VII has a broader scope than the Aytona ruling. It may not unreasonably be deemed to contemplate not only “midnight” appointments – those made obviously for partisan reasons as shown by their number and the time of their making – but also appointments presumed made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the Presidential election.” Manalo vs Sistoza Unconstitutional are Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975 (DILG ACT) which empower the Commission on Appointments to confirm the appointments of public officials whose appointments are not required by the Constitution to be confirmed…xxx 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. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP x x x do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The Military Powers of the President (1) Calling out power as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP (2) Martial Law Power (3) Suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus IBP vs Zamora It is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to call forth the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. The intent to grant the President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by Congress and review by this Court. Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to impose martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must require it. These conditions are not required in the case of the power to call out the armed forces. The only criterion 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 as compared to the two other powers…x x x On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief has a vast intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. Such a scenario is not farfetched when we consider the present situation in Mindanao, where the insurgency problem could spill over the other parts of the country…x x x Pardoning Power of the President 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. (1) Reprieve (2) Commutations (3) Pardon

Political Law 1 Page 11

(4) Amnesty Monsanto vs Factoran While a pardon has generally been regarded as blotting out the existence of guilt so that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as though he never committed the offense, it does not operate for all purposes. The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt and not forgetfulness. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. Pardon frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores to him all his civil rights. Unless expressly grounded on the person's innocence, it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. The pardoned offender regains his eligibility for appointment to public office which was forfeited by reason of the conviction of the offense. But since pardon does not generally result in automatic reinstatement because the offender has to apply for reappointment, he is not entitled to back wages. But, stated otherwise, if the pardon is based on the innocence of the individual, it affirms this innocence and makes him a new man and as innocent as if he had not been found guilty of the offense charged. When a person is given pardon because he did not truly commit the offense, the pardon relieves the party from all punitive consequences of his criminal act, thereby restoring to him his clean name, good reputation and unstained character prior to the finding of guilt. Kapunan vs CA We are in accord with the findings of the Investigating Panel that in this particular case, the grant of amnesty to the respondents concerned, does not extinguish their criminal liability for the Olalia-Alay-ay killings. There is no showing that this case was one of those crimes for which amnesty was applied for and subsequently granted. Logic and reason dictate that amnesty for a particular offense could not have been granted when it was not even applied for. Besides, Proclamation No. 348 (granting amnesty to certain AFP/PNP personnel who may have committed certain acts defined herein) dated March 25, 1994, as amended by Proclamation No. 348 dated May 10, 1994, provides that for amnesty to be granted, the acts or omissions for which it is sought do not constitute serious human rights violations, such as acts of torture, extra-legal execution, arson, massacre, rape, other crimes against chastity, or robbery of any form (underscoring supplied). Evidently, the Olalia-Alay-ay murder partakes of the nature of extra-legal execution and could not have come within the ambit of the law. Treaty Making Power 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. Sec. 25, Art. 18 Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. Bayan vs Zamora The power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. SC: The Phil. Gov’t. has complied with the Constitution in that the VFA was concurred in by the Phil. Senate, thus complying with Sec. 21, Art. VII. The Republic of the Philippines cannot require the US to submit the agreement to the US Senate for concurrence, for that would be giving a strict construction to the phrase, “recognized as a treaty”. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA as merely an executive agreement because under international law, an executive agreement is just as binding as a treaty. Other Powers of the President not in Art VII (1) Veto power of the President (2) General Supervision of LGUs (3) Call Congress on special sessions

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 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. Parts of Judicial Power (1) Duty to settle actual controversies- traditional concept of judicial power (2) Determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion- expanded power of judicial review -extraordinary powers of the Court -political question doctrine was deemed somehow inoperative Political Question Doctrine -questions of policy that inquiries as to the wisdom or efficacy of an act -as a rule, political questions should not be intruded by the Court -sprung from the doctrine of separation of powers Tanada vs Cuenco Political questions refer "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government." When the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable - the problem being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. By grave abuse of discretion is meant simply capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. Under this definition, a court is without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated. But while this Court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of Congress or of the President, it may look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion. Estrada vs Desierto

EDSA 1 EDSA 2

Involves the people power of revolution which overthrows the whole government

An exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the president

Extra-constitutional Intra-constitutional

The legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be subject to judicial review

The resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review

Political Question Legal Question

IBP vs Zamora The determination of the necessity for the calling out power if subjected to unfettered judicial scrutiny could be a veritable prescription for disaster, as such power may be unduly straitjacketed by an injunction or a temporary restraining order every time it is exercised. Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to call forth the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Unless the petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused,

Political Law 1 Page 12

the President’s exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from this Court. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that in the deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law, exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this Court is not inclined to overrule the President’s determination of the factual basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless violence. David vs GMA -GMA declared a state of emergency -Declaration of national state of emergency is only a delegated power by the Congress to the President -What GMA exercised was not; a. State of Emergency because there was no law authorizing it b. Martial Law because no grounds existed that validates the declaration of martial law -What GMA exercised was her calling out power -SolGen said that there was an on-going conspiracy to destabilize the present government that justifies GMA’s declaration of state of national emergency -Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof and to rebut the factual evidence presented by the Solicitor General - SC sustained proclamation 1017 -However, the SC declared the following acts done in pursuant to the declaration as ultra vires acts; a. Curtailment of the freedom of the media b. Threats to hold public utilities c. Warrantless arrests d. Prohibition against rallies and mass demonstrations Villuya vs Zamora -Comfort women wanted to the President to espouse their claim against the Japanese Government -They wanted the Japanese Government to apologize and pay damages to them. -President refused to bring their claims because of the agreement between Japan and the Philippines -If the President refuses, the Court could do nothing anymore because it is now a political question -The Court could only urge the President to espouse their claims but the Court cannot compel him.