IA 2008 Constitutional asdfLaw I Digests (Executive)

8/13/2019 IA 2008 Constitutional asdfLaw I Digests (Executive)

1/25

Subject: Constitutional Law I

Date:

EXECUTIVE POWER

Art 7, Sec 1 A

MARCOS ! MA"#LAPUS177 SCRA 668

Facts:

Feb 1986 Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from thepresidenc !ia the non"!io#ent $peop#e power% re!o#&tion andforced into e'i#e( )n his stead, Cora*on A+&ino was dec#aredresident of the Rep&b#ic &nder a Re!o#&tionar -o!ernment(

.er ascension to and conso#idation of power ha!e not been&ncha##en-ed(

Fai#ed co&p attempts1( Mani#a .ote#/( ta0eo!er of Channe# 7 b rebe# troops #ed b Co#(

Can#as with the s&pport of $Marcos #oa#ists%

an 23 1987&ns&ccessf p#ot of the Marcos spo&ses tos&rreptitio&s# ret&rn from .awaii with mercenaries aboard anaircraft chartered b a 4ebanese arms dea#er

awa0ened the nation to the capacit of theMarcoses to stir tro&b#e e!en from afar and to the fanaticismand b#in0 #oa#t of the fo##owers in the this co&ntr(

5he ratification of the 1987 Constit&tion enshrined the !ictorof $peop#e power% and a#so c#ear# reinforced constit&tiona#moorin-s of Mrs( A+&inos presidenc(

Armed threats to the -o!ernment were not on# fo&nd inmis-&ided e#ements in the mi#itar estab#ishment and amon-rabid fo##owers of Marcos

1( A sp#it in the ran0s of the mi#itar estab#ishment thatthreatened ci!i#ian s&premac o!er the mi#itar andbro&-ht to the fore the rea#i*ation that ci!i#ian

-o!ernment cod be at the merc of a fractio&smi#itar(

/( Comm&nist ins&r-enc and the secessionistmo!ement in Mindanao

or are the woes p&re# po#itica#( 5he acc&mated forei-ndebt and the p#&nder of the nation of the nation attrib&ted toMarcos and his cronies #eft the econom de!asted(

ow, Mr( Marcos, at his deathbed, has si-nified his wish toret&rn to the hi#ippines to die(

.owe!er, Mrs( A+&ino, considerin- the dire conse+&ences tothe nation of his ret&rn at a time when the stabi#it of the-o!ernment is threatened from !ario&s directions and theeconom is &st be-innin- to rise and mo!e forward, has stodfirm# on the decision to bar the ret&rn of Marcos and his

fami#(

Rin-:

5he petition is hereb )SM)SS(

)ss&e:

;


2/25

EXECUTIVE IMMU"IT.

A&ticle VII- Sec! / 0a

Est&a*a ! Desie&to

1acts:A#tho&-h it was not -i!en in the case boo0 of Father

?, this was the tria# of former resident oseph ercito stradafor the crime of p#&nder( etitioner c#aimed his presidentia#imm&nit from s&it(

Issue:

;


3/25

etition dimissedD CM4C did 5 act with (A((

F is a nat&ra#"born Fi#ipino and ma r&n for

resident(

Ratio

roced&ra#:

o es, SC has &dicia# power of re!iew =Art G))),

Sec 1>

o SC does 5 ha!e ori-ina# &risdiction,

beca&se it on# attains this for HI;ARRA5 proceedin-s( Meanin-, someone

m&st ha!e been proc#aimed winner and

someone is cha##en-inthis rest

=4C5) C5S5>

Inder the hi#ippine ?i## of 193/ and ones 4aw of

1916, a## Spanish s&bects on 11 Apri# 1891 were

considered Fi#ipino citi*ens(

Records show that 4oren*o o& =-randfather of F>

died in 19JB in an-asinan at 8B ears o#dD th&s, he

was born 1873K absent an proof that he was

e#sewhere, it is ass&med that he resided in

an-asinan as we##, ma0in- him part to the $en

masse% citi*enship of the hi#ippine ?i## of 193/

5his citi*enship e'tended to A##an oe, and

s&bse+&ent#, &nder the 192J Constit&tion, to F

as the 192J Consti did not distin-&ish between

i##e-itimate and #e-itimate chi#dren

Fami# Code: #ibera#i*ed res on fi#iation of

#e-itimate chi#dren: '''

o Admission of #e-itimate fi#iation in a p&b#ic

doc&ment or a pri!ate handwritten

instr&ment si-ned b the parent concerned

'''

o R an other means a##owed b Res of

Co&rt '''

o R5RAC5)G4 A4)

Res of Co&rt a##ow for a ec#aration of edi-ree,

and one was made b R&b Ee##e Man-ahas, sister

of ?esside Ee##e oe, pro!in- that A##an oe #i!ed

to-ether with ?essie Ee##e, reco-ni*in- paterna#

re#ationship with F

etitioners c#aim that bein- born before A##an oes

and ?essie Ee##es marria-e made F an i##e-itimate

chi#d, and th&s an AMR)CA C)5)L =fo##owin-

mothers citi*enship> based on &rispr&dence

SC said that re#iance on other cases is in!a#id

beca&se the precedents did not dea# with i##e-itimate

chi#dren of Fi#ipino fathers, or, in the case Paa v

Chan, was based on ?)5R )C5IM on#

!en if the &rispr&dence were he#d, it wod be a

case of IHIA4 R5C5):

o ;h discriminate a-ainst i##e-itimate

chi#dren, if it wasnt their choice to be born

&nder this condition@

o 5here is no distinction between an

i##e-itimate chi#d of a Fi#ipino father and the

i##e-itimate chi#d of a Fi#ipino mother(

ELECTIO" A"D CA"VASS

(R( o( 1J7312 13, /332

ATT.! ROMULO +! MACALI"TAL, petitioner,!s(

COMMISSIO" O" ELECTIO"S, 2O"! AL+ERTO ROMULO,in his officia# capacit as 'ec&ti!e Secretar, and 2O"!EMILIA T! +O"CODI", Secretar of the epartment of

?&d-et and Mana-ement, respondents(

1acts:

?efore the Co&rt is a petition for certiorari and prohibition fi#edb Romo ?( Maca#inta#, a member of the hi#ippine ?ar,see0in- a dec#aration that certain pro!isions of Re%ublic Act"o! 8/98=The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003> is&nconstit&tiona#( C#aimin- that he has act&a# and materia##e-a# interest, petitioner fi#ed the instant petition as ata'paer and as a #awer(

Come#ec has no comment(

Issues:

A( oes Section J=d> of Rep( Act o( 9189 a##owin- there-istration of !oters who are immi-rants or permanentresidents in other co&ntries b their mere act of e'ec&tin- an

affida!it e'pressin- their intention to ret&rn to the hi#ippines,!io#ate the residenc re+&irement in Section 1 of Artic#e G ofthe Constit&tion@ =from the f# case, not in ?ernas case boo0>

+! Does Section /9! o) t(e sa'e law e'%owe&in, t(eCOMELEC to %&oclai' t(e winnin, can*i*ates )o&national o))ices an* %a&t4 list &e%&esentaties inclu*in,t(e P&esi*ent an* t(e Vice;P&esi*ent iolate t(econstitutional 'an*ate un*e& Section


4/25

%&ocla'ation o) winnin, can*i*ates despitethe fact that the scheded e#ection has not ta0enp#ace in a particar co&ntr or co&ntries, if theho#din- of e#ections therein has been renderedimpossib#e b e!ents, factors and circ&mstancespeciar to s&ch co&ntr or co&ntries, in whiche!ents, factors and circ&mstances are beond thecontro# or inf#&ence of the Commission( =mphasiss&pp#ied>

etitioner c#aims that the pro!ision of Section 18(J of R(A( o(

9189 empowerin- the CM4C to order the proc#amation ofwinnin- candidates insofar as it affects the can!ass of !otesand proc#amation of winnin- candidates for president and!ice"president, is &nconstit&tiona# beca&se it !io#ates thefo##owin- pro!isions of para-raph B, Section B of Artic#e G)) ofthe Constit&tion(

Con-ress cod not ha!e a##owed the CM4C to &s&rp apower that constit&tiona## be#on-s to it or, as apt# stated bpetitioner, to encroach Non the power of Con-ress to can!assthe !otes for president and !ice"president and the power toproc#aim the winners for the said positions(N 5he pro!isions ofthe Constit&tion as the f&ndamenta# #aw of the #and shod beread as part of The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003andhence, the can!assin- of the !otes and the proc#amation ofthe winnin- candidates for president and !ice"president for

the entire nation m&st remain in the hands of Con-ress(

Con,&ess'an Lo%e3 s! Senate an* 2ouse

Facts:A petition was s&bmitted see0in- to n#if Sec 12, Re G))) ofthe Res of the oint &b#ic Session of Con-ress, creatin- a

oint Committee which sha## pre#iminar can!ass the !otes ofthe candidates for resident and Gice"resident d&rin- theMa 13, /33B e#ections( 5his case is within the &risdiction ofthe co&rts beca&se it contains s&fficient a##e-ations c#aimin-!io#ations of the Constit&tion()ss&e: ;hether or not the Con-ress committed -ra!e ab&se ofdiscretion in creatin- the oint Committee and depri!edpetition and the other members of Con-ress of theircon-ressiona# prero-ati!e(.e#d: o the did not( etition is dismissedRationa#e: 5he Co&rt has no a&thorit to restrict or #imit thee'ercise of con-ressiona# prero-ati!e -ranted b theConstit&tion(

5he creation of the oint Committee does not constit&te -ra!eab&se of discretion and depri!ed petition and the othermembers of Con-ress of their con-ressiona# prero-ati!e,beca&se &nder the decisions and fina# report of the saidCommittee sha## be s&bect to the appro!a# of the oint sessionof both .o&ses of Con-ress !otin- separate#(

Section < > /CPi'entel Vs! ?oint Canassin, Co''ittee

1acts:Senator A+&i#ino imente# is assai#in- the contin&ed e'istenceof the oint Committee of Con-ress to determine thea&thenticit and d&e e'ec&tion of the certificates of can!assand the pre#iminar can!ass( imente# proposes that since the

5we#fth Con-ress ado&rned on &ne 11, /33B =5he date of thecase is &ne //, /33B>, a## pendin- matters and proceedin-sterminate &pon the e'piration of Con-ress( .e re#ies on Artic#e6 Section 1J to assert that since Con-ress is in the 23 dacompsor recess, a## acti!ities had to stop( .e a#so re#ies on$#e-is#ati!e proced&re, precedent or practice borne b theres of both .o&ses(

Issue:

;


5/25

)ss&e:;

II ; Te'%o&a&4 Inabilit4

etitioner ar-&es that the co&rt misinterpreted themeanin- of sec 11 of Artic#e G)) of the Constit&tion thatthe Con-ress can on# decide the iss&e of the inabi#itwhen there is a !ariance in the opinion between amaorit of the Cabinet and the residentK(

5he petitioner himse#f made the s&bmission in (R(o(1B6728 that Con-ress has the timate a&thorit&nder the Constit&tion to determine whether thepresident is incapab#e of performin- his f&nctions in themanner pro!ided for in section 11 of Art G))

5he Reco-nition of respondent Arroo as o&r de &represident made b Con-ress is a po#itica# &d-ment

eop#es #oss of confidence on the abi#it of rap toeffecti!e# -o!ern and the members of the internationa#comm&nit had e'tended their reco-nition of MA aspresident has a constit&tiona# d&t of fea#t to thes&preme wi## of the peop#eK

o 5his po#itica# &d-ment ma be ri-ht orwron- b&t Con-ress is answerab#e on# tothe peop#e for its &d-ment( )ts wisdom is fitto be debated before the trib&na# of thepeop#e and not before a co&rt of &stice(

etitioner attempts to e'tricated himse#f from hiss&bmission that Con-ress has the timate a&thorit todetermine his inabi#it to -o!ern and whosedetermination is po#itica# +&estion b now ar-&in- thatwhether one is a de &re or de fact resident is a &dicia#+&estion

o etitioners chan-e of theor does notimpress

.4: n the iss&e of resi-nation &nder sec8 Artic#e G)) we he#d

that the iss&e is #e-a# and red that the petitioner hasresi-ned from office before respondent too0 her oath aspresident

n the iss&e of the inabi#it to -o!ern &nder sec11 Art G))we he#d that Con-ress has the timate a&thorit todetermine the +&estion as opined b the petitionerhimse#f and the determination of Con-ress is a po#itica#

&d-ment which this co&rt cod not re!iew( etitionercannot b#&r these specific rin-s b the -enera#i*ationthat whether one is de &re or de facto resident is a

&dicia# +&estion

Petitione& on;leae a&,u'ent.e asserts that these acts of Con-ress shod not be accordedan #e-a# si-nificance beca&se:

1( these are post facto/( a dec#aration of presidentia# incapacit cannot be

imp#ied

)A /338 i-ested Cases

J


6/25

5he co&rt disa-rees( 5here is nothin- in sec 11of art G)) which states that the dec#aration bCon-ress of the residents inabi#it m&sta#was be a priori or before the Gice residentass&mes presidenc

5he case at bar shod be -i!en consideration-i!en the fact that e!ents which #ed to theresi-nation of the petitioner happened ate'press speed and cminated on a Sat&rda(Con-ress was then not in session and had no

reasonab#e opport&nit to act a priori on thepetitioners #etter c#aimin- inabi#it to -o!ern

Recusation:

etitioner pras that the members of the .onorab#e co&rt whowent to SA to inhibit themse#!es

.e#d: praer #ac0s merit since there is no -ro&nd to inhibit 1/members of the Co&rt who mere# accepted the in!itation ofthe respondent to attend her oath"ta0in- as mere spectatorsof a historic e!ent(

5MRAR )SA?)4)5

A&ticle VII- Sec! 9 0!A

Est&a*a ! Desie&to O'bu*s'an

1acts:strada was e#ected president whi#e MA was e#ected

as !ice president( ?&t d&e to the different a##e-ations #i0erecei!in- jueteng mone and the ose Ge#arde acco&nt,impeachment of the resident was bro&-ht to Con-ress b&tdifferent officia#s( 5he peop#e a#so as0ed for his !o#&ntarresi-nation which #ater #ead to what we 0now as eop#e ower))( )n this case, strada in his petitions, cha##en-es MA as the!e jure 1Bthresident(

Issue:;

R.)?)5)S

7uintin S! Do&o'al- %etitione&- s! SA"DI#A"+A.A"OM+UDSMA" A"D SPECIAL PROSECUTOR- &es%on*ents/GG SCRA H which entered into ab&siness transaction with the CS and MC(

5he petitioner fi#ed a Motion to H&ash the)nformation on the -ro&nd that the )nformation fi#ed b the

5anodbaan =now a specia# prosec&tor> was witho&t theappro!a# of the mb&dsman( 5he Sandi-anbaan denied themotion, and the petitioner went to the S&preme Co&rt foCertiorari and rohibition( 5h&s, the SC s&stained thepetitioner and ann#ed the )nformation a-ainst the petitioner(


6


7/25

5hereafter, the mb&dsman fi#ed a new )nformationwith some amendments which showed that oroma# hadwi##f# and &n#awf# participated in the b&siness which isprohibited b #aw and the Constit&tion( A-ain, the petitionerfi#ed a Motion to H&ash the new )nformation before theSandi-anbaan on the -ro&nd that there was no pre#iminarin!esti-ation cond&cted b the mb&dsman(

5he Sandi-anbaan denied petitioners motion to+&ash( 5he Sandi-anbaan a#so -ranted the Motion of theSpecia# rosec&tor for the s&spension pendente #ite of

petitioner from his position as C Commissioner( 5hepetitioner fi#ed a Motion for Reconsideration contendin- thathe cannot be s&spended beca&se the resident has a#readappro!ed his indefinite #ea!e of absence &nti# the terminationof his case( 5he Sandi-anbaan denied his motion forreconsideration, and hence, this petition for Certiorari androhibition before the S&preme Co&rt(

)SSIS: 1( ; pro!ides:

Section 12: S&spension and #oss of benefits( Anp&b#ic officer a-ainst whom an crimina# prosec&tion &nder a!a#id information &nder this Act or &nder the pro!isions of theRe!ised ena# Code and briber is pendin- in Co&rt, sha## bes&spended from office( ' ' ' (

Since the petitioner is an inc&mbent p&b#ic officiachar-ed in a !a#id information with an offense p&nishab#e&nder the constit&tion and the #aws =RA 2319 and 837>the #aws command that he sha## be s&spended from office$pendente #ite% m&st be obeed( .is appro!ed #ea!e oabsence b the resident is not a bar to his pre!enti!es&spension beca&se it ma be cance##ed or shortened at wi#b the inc&mbent(

Since his pre!enti!e s&spension has e'ceeded thereasonab#e ma'im&m period of 93 das pro!ided in Section B/

of the Ci!i# Ser!ice 4aw = 837>, the S&preme Co&rt has#i0ewise #ifted petitioners pre!enti!e s&spension(

Ciil Libe&ties Union ! T(e E$ecutie Sec&eta&4

1acts: etitioners cha##en-e the (( /8B on the -ro&nd that itadds e'ceptions to Section 12, Artic#e 71other than thosepro!ided in the Constit&tion(

Issue: oes the prohibition in Section 12, Artic#e 7 admit ofthe broad e'ceptions made for appointi!e officia#s in -enera#&nder Section 7, para-raph /, Artic#e 9b@/

2el*: o(

Rulin,: As compared to the #atter, the dis+&a#ification in theformer is abso#&te, not bein- +&a#ified b the phrase $in theo!ernment(% ;hi#e a## other appointi!e officia#s in the ci!i#ser!ice are a##owed to ho#d other office or emp#oment in the-o!ernment d&rin- their ten&re when s&ch is a##owed b #awor b the primar f&nctions of their positions, members of theCabinet, their dep&ties and assistants ma do so on# whene'press# a&thori*ed b the Constit&tion itse#f( Section 7,Artic#e 9b is meant to #a down the -enera# re app#icab#e toa## e#ecti!e and appointi!e p&b#ic officia#s and emp#oees,whi#e section 12, artic#e 7 is meant to be the e'ceptionapp#icab#e onlto the resident, the G, members of thecabinet, their dep&ties and assistants(

)n order that s&ch additiona# d&ties or f&nctions ma nottrans-ress the prohibition embodied in Section 12, Artic#e 7 ofthe Constit&tion, s&ch additiona# d&ties or f&nctions m&st bere+&ired b the primar f&nctions of the officia# concerned,who is to perform the same in an e'"officio capacit aspro!ided b #aw, witho&t recei!inan additiona#compensation therefore(

5he representati!es so desi-nated mere# perform d&ties inthe ?oard in addition to those a#read performed &nder theirori-ina# appointments( =For e'amp#e, the Secretaries ofFinance and ?&d-et are sittin- as members of the Monetar?oard> )t is consistent with the power !ested on the residentand his a#ter e-os, the Cabinet members, to ha!e contro# of a#the e'ec&ti!e departments, b&rea&s and offices and to ens&rethat the #aws are faithf# e'ec&ted(

Since (( /8B a##ows the said e'ec&ti!e officers to ho#dmtip#e offices or emp#oment, it is in direct contra!ention of

section 12, artic#e 7( 5h&s, it is &nconstit&tiona#(

Sec /H/C+itonio ?&! VS Co''ission on Au*it COA

1acts

1Specifically prohibiting the president, VP, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding

any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself.

2Containing a blanket/broad prohibition against the holding of multiple offices of employment in the government

subsuming both elective and appointive public offi cials.


7


8/25

=1> ?enedicto ?itonio r( is irector B of ?&rea& of 4aborRe#ations of the ept( of 4abor and mp#oment =4>=/> )n 199J, Actin- Secretar ose ?ri##antes of 4desi-nated ?itionio to be the 4 representati!e to the?oard of irectors of LA(=2> LA or the hi#ippine conomic Lone A&thorit is thecorporate bod created &nder RA 7916 or the Specia#conomic Lone Act of 199J(=B> )t said that the ?oard of LA sha## be composed of theSecretaries or their representati!es of the !ario&s e'ec&ti!edepartments and -o!ernment offices #i0e 4, )4, ?S,

etc(=J> 5he ?oard members are -i!en per !iem or dai#a##owances =&sed for tra!e# e'penses>( 5h&s ?itonio recei!edper !iem e!er board meetin- from 199J"1997(=6> CA, after a&ditin- LAs disb&rsements, iss&ed oticesof isa##owance a-ainst ?itonio, which prohibited him fromrecei!in-per !iems,

IssueMain Issue: ;as the CA correct in disa##owin- ?itonio r(from recei!in- per !iems for attendance in the ?oardmeetin-s as the representati!e of the Secretar of 4abor@S%eci)ic %oint &aise* b4 %etitione&:=1> CA cannot re# on rin- in Civil iberties 1nion V#)ecutive #ecretar in that Cabinet Secretaries,Indersecretaries, and their Assistant Secretaries are

prohibited to ho#d mtip#e -o!t positions and recei!ecompensation thereof ?CAIS petitioner is a representati!eof the SecretarD he is not co!ered b the prohibition(=/> RA 7916 was enacted B ears after rin- in Civil iberties1nionet #e-is#ation sti## enacted the #aw, most #i0e# aware ofthe rin- in Civil( 5his means the &pho#d the constit&tiona#itof RA 7916(

2el*es, CA is correct in its iss&ance of otices of isa##owance(

Ratio=1> Rin- in Civil iberties 1nion" etitioner is co!ered b prohibition beca&se as arepresentati!e, he cannot ha!e a better ri-ht that hisprincipa#, the Secretar( Accordin- to .ela Cru V# COA, theCo&rt red that officers who sat as a#ternates of their

s&periors in the ?oard of the ationa# .o&sin- A&thorit a#soha!e no ri-ht to recei!e additiona# compensation, beca&setheir s&periors are a#so not a##owed to recei!e compensation(

5he cannot ha!e a better ri-ht that their principa#(=/> Ga#idit of RA 7916" !en if RA 7916 was !a#id# enacted, this Co&rt can sti##decide on its constit&tiona#it beca&se it is basic tenet thatan #e-is#ati!e enactment m&st not be rep&-nant to theConstit&tion( oin- so is not a cha##en-e to the wisdom of the#e-is#ation, b&t it is done on# to safe-&ard the Constit&tion(" RA 7916 was s&bse+&ent# amended as RA 87B8, where =a>it is specifica## stated that the ?oard sha## consist 4 of the&ndersecretaries, =b> the option to desi-nate a representati!eis de#eted, and =c> the pament ofper !iems was a#so de#eted(

5he amendment is an e'p#icit reco-nition of the #e-is#ationthat there is a f#aw in RA 7916(

ConclusionCA was correct in prohibitin- ?itonio from recei!in- per!iems beca&se a#tho&-h Artic#e 7, Section 12 of theConstit&tion and the Civil iberties 1nion rin- on# prohibitsCabinet Secretaries, Indersecretaries, and AssistantSecretaries and 5 representati!es from recei!in- additiona#compensation, ?itonio can ha!e

;R F A)5M5

#oe&n'ent ! S%&in,e&

)n o!ernment !( Sprin-er, the S&preme Co&rt said that sincethe power to appoint is neither #e-is#ati!e nor &dicia# innat&re, it m&st be 'ec&ti!e in nat&re(

Since the power to appoint is an e'ec&ti!e f&nction, the c#eaimp#ication is that the #e-is#at&re ma not &s&rp s&ch af&nction( 5he #e-is#at&re can create an office and prescribethe +&a#ifications of the person who wi## ho#d the office b&t itcannot specif who sha## occ&p the created position( 5he#e-is#at&re a#so cannot appoint who wi## occ&p the position(

5he appointin- power is the e'c#&si!e prero-ati!e of theresident, &pon which no #imitations ma be imposed bCon-ress, e'cept those restin- from the #imited e'ercise ofpower to prescribe the +&a#ifications to a -i!en appointment(

5he power to appoint inc#&des the power to decide whoamon- the !ario&s choices is best +&a#ified, pro!ided that theperson chosen has the +&a#ifications pro!ided b #aw( ;hen astat&te does not pro!ide how an officer is to be appointed, theappointment m&st be made b the resident beca&se Section13 states that the resident $appoints a## other officers of the-o!ernment whose appointments are not otherwise pro!idedfor%(

5he appointin- power of the resident shod not be conf&sedwith the power of the #e-is#at&re to impose additiona# d&tieson e'istin- offices(

+e&'u*e3 s! E$ecutie Sec&eta&4 %!


9/25

etitioners contend that the rin- in San &an !s( CSC shodbe app#ied in this case( 5he case of San &an in!o#!ed thee#ection of the ro!incia# ?&d-et fficer( F&rthermore, it wasstated that the epartment of ?&d-et and Mana-ement=?M> shod appoint the ? from a #ist pro!ided b theo!ernor( )t is important to note that the Re!isedAdministrati!e Code of 1987 contained a pro!ision simi#ar tothe case of San &an( 5he Code specifica## stated that $A##ro!incia# and cit prosec&tors and their assistants sha## beappointed b the resident &pon the recommendation of theSecretar of &stice( ote that H&iaoit was not recommended

b the Secretar of &stice(

5he re+&irement that the ro!incia# rosec&tor berecommended is &st director in nat&re( )t is not mandator(An appointment to a p&b#ic office is the &ne+&i!oca# act ofdesi-natin- or se#ectin- b one ha!in- the a&thorit of anindi!id&a# to dischar-e and perform the d&ties and f&nctionsof an office or tr&st( Appointment necessari# ca##s for ane'ercise of discretion on the part of the appointin- officer(

5he San &an case is not app#icab#e to the case at bar sincethe former in!o#!es a str&--#e between the e'ec&ti!edepartment an a #oca# a&tonom( )n s&ch case, the #oca#a&tonom shod be -i!en the power instead of the e'ec&ti!edepartment(

Art 7 Sec 16=C>

1lo&es et al! s D&ilon an* #o&*on(R( 13B72/ &ne // 1992

4ote5 The petitioners herein are 6oberto Flores% .anielFigueroa% 6ogelio Palo% .omingo /a!loc% Carlito Cru an!7anuel 6ees "ho claim to be tapaers% emploees of the1,#, Facilit at the #ubic% 8ambales% an! officers an!members of the Filipino Civilian )mploees Association in 1,#,Facilities in the Philippines, .rilon is then the )ecutive#ecretar an! 9or!on is the 7aor of the Cit of Olongapo,

Facts:

5he petitioners fi#ed for prohibition, pre#iminar in&nction and

temporar restrainin- order on Maor ordon for ha!in- beenappointed as the Chairman and Chief 'ec&ti!e fficer of theS&bic ?a Metropo#itan A&thorit =S?MA> &nder Sec 12, par =d>of R(A( 7//7 or the ?ases Con!ersion and e!e#opment Act of199/( etitioners a#so +&estion the constit&tiona#it of thepro!iso in the said para-raph, which states:

Provi!e!% ho"ever% That for the first ear of this Act% themaor of the Cit of Olongapo shall be appointe! as thechairman an! chief eecutive officer of the #ubic Authorit,

)ss&e:

; of RA 7//7 infrin-es on theff constit&tiona# and stat&tor pro!isions:

1( Sec 7 of the first para-raph of Art 9"? of theConstit&tion =non"e#i-ibi#it of e#ecti!e officia#s for

appointment or desi-nation to an p&b#ic officed&rin- his ten&re>

2. Sec 16 Art 7 of the Constit&tion, which pro!ides thatthe resident sha## appoint a## other officers of theo!ernmentK =5he Case boo0 foc&sed on this iss&e>WJ" t(e Con,&ess abuse* t(ei& aut(o&it4 to%&esc&ibe Fuali)ications w(e&e onl4 one- an* noot(e&- can Fuali)4 in t(e a%%oint'ents 'a*e b4t(e P&esi*ent(

2( Sec /61 par =-> of the mnib&s #ection Code =oappointments, etc m&st be made BJ das before are-ar e#ection otherwise there is an e#ectionoffense(>

4ote5 (ssues : an! 3 came from the original case an! "erenot !iscusse! in the case boo+% thereb the !iscussions of"hich "ill onl be !iscusse! in brief,

.e#d: 5he pro!iso is dec#ared &nconstit&tiona#( Maor ordonsappointment is dec#ared # and Goid( .owe!er, he ma beconsidered a de facto officer and th&s an emo#&ments whichma ha!e been recei!ed b ordon if he was the Chie'ec&ti!e of S?MA ma be retained b him =as in the rin- inthe Ci!i# 4iberties Inion>(

Rationa#e:

1( articar# as re-ards the first para-raph of Sec( 7the basic idea rea## is to pre!ent a sit&ation where a#oca# e#ecti!e officia# wi## wor0 for his appointment inan e'ec&ti!e position in -o!ernment, and th&sne-#ect his constit&ents( 5he first para-raph appearsto be more strin-ent b not pro!idin- an e'ceptionto the re a-ainst appointment or desi-nation of anelective officia# to the -o!ernment post, e'cept asare particar# reco-ni*ed in the Constit&tion itse#f(

/( ;hen Con-ress c#othes the resident with the poweto appoint an officer, it =Con-ress> cannot at thesame time #imit the choice of the resident to on#one candidate( nce the power of appointment isconferred on the resident, s&ch confermennecessari# carries the discretion of whom to appoint!en on the prete't of prescribin- the +&a#ificationsof the officer, Con,&ess 'a4 not abuse suc(%owe& as to *iest t(e a%%ointin, aut(o&it4*i&ectl4 o& in*i&ectl4- o) (is *isc&etion to %ic5(is own c(oice( Conse+&ent#, when the+&a#ifications prescribed b Con-ress can on# bemet b one indi!id&a#, s&ch enactment effecti!e#e#iminates the discretion of the appointin- power tochoose and constit&tes an irre-ar restriction on thepower of appointment( )n the case at bar, whi#eCon-ress wi##ed that the s&bect posts be fi##ed with apresidentia# appointee for the first ear of itsoperations from the effecti!it of R(A( 7//7, theproviso ne!erthe#ess #imits the appointin- a&thorit

to on# one e#i-ib#e, i,e,, the inc&mbent Maor o#on-apo Cit( Since onl4 one can Fuali)4 )o& t(e%osts in Fuestion- t(e P&esi*ent is %&eclu*e*)&o' e$e&cisin, (is *isc&etion to c(oose w(o'to a%%oint( #uch suppose! po"er of appointment"ithout the essential element of choice% is no po"erat all an! goes against the ver nature itself ofappointment(

5he power to appoint is, in essence, discretionar( 5heappointin- power has the ri-ht of choice which he mae'ercise free# accordin- to his &d-ment, decidin- for himse#who is best +&a#ified amon- those who ha!e the necessar+&a#ifications and e#i-ibi#ities( )t is a prero-ati!e of theappointin- power ( ( ( (

)ndeed, t(e %owe& o) c(oice is t(e (ea&t o) t(e%owe& to a%%oint( Appointment in!o#!es an

e'ercise of discretion of whom to appointD it is not aministeria# act of iss&in- appointment papers to theappointee( )n other words, t(e c(oice o) t(ea%%ointee is a )un*a'ental co'%onent o) t(ea%%ointin, %owe&

2( 5he appointment of respondent ordon to thes&bect posts made b respondent 'ec&ti!eSecretar on 2 Apri# 199/ was within the prohibitedBJ"da period prior to the 11 Ma 199/ #ectionstherefore it can be considered, &nder the mnib&s#ection Code Sec /61 par =->, an e#ection offense(


9


10/25

Sa&'iento ! Mison/ SCRA : a## other

officers of the o!ernment whose appointments are nototherwise pro!ided for b #awThir! group of officers =fo&nd in second sentence>: thosewhom the resident ma be a&thori*ed b #aw to appointKCo''issione& o) +u&eau o) Custo's )alls un*e& t(is asstate* in RA /8HG- t(e Ta&i)) an* Custo's Co*e o) t(eP(ili%%inesFourth group of officers =third sentence>: officers #ower in ran0whose appointments the Con-ress ma b #aw !est in theresident

7uintos;Deles- et al! ! Co''ission on A%%oint'ents

Facts:

5eresita H&inton"e#es and three others wereappointed sectora# Representati!es b the resident p&rs&antto Artic#e G)), Section 16, para-raph / and Artic#e G))), Section7 of the Constit&tion, H&inton"e#es as a representati!e of thewomens sector( .owe!er, petitioner and the three othersectora# representati!es"appointees were not ab#e to ta0etheir oaths and dischar-e their d&ties as members ofCon-ress d&e to the opposition of some con-ressmen"members of the Commission on Appointments, who insistedthat sectora# representati!es m&st first be confirmed b therespondent Commission before the cod ta0e their oathsand


11/25

)t is readi# apparent that &nder the pro!isions of the 1987Constit&tion, &st +&oted, there are fo&r =B> -ro&ps of officerswhom the resident sha## appoint( 5hese fo&r =B> -ro&ps, towhich we wi## hereafter refer from time to time, are:

First, the heads of the e'ec&ti!e departments,ambassadors, other p&b#ic ministers and conss officers ofthe armed forces from the ran0 of co#one# or na!a# captain,and other officers whose appointments are !ested in him inthis Constit&tionD ' ' '

Since the seats reser!ed for sectora# representati!esin para-raph /, Section J, Art( G) ma be fi##ed b appointmentb the resident b e'press pro!ision of Section 7, Art( G))) ofthe Constit&tion, it is &nd&bitab#e that sectora#representati!es to the .o&se of Representati!es are amon-the Nother officers whose appointments are !ested in theresident in this Constit&tion,N referred to in the first sentenceof Section 16, Art( G)) whose appointments are s&bect toconfirmation b the Commission on Appointments(

e!erthe#ess, there are appointments !ested in theresident in the Constit&tion which, b e'press mandate of

the Constit&tion, re+&ire no confirmation s&ch asappointments of members of the S&preme Co&rt and &d-es of#ower co&rts =Sec( 9, Art( G)))> and the mb&dsman and hisdep&ties =Sec( 9, Art( )>( o s&ch e'emption fromconfirmation had been e'tended to appointments of sectora#representati!es in the Constit&tion(

etitioners appointment was f&rthermore madep&rs&ant to Art( G)), Section 16, para-raph / which pro!ides:

5he resident sha## ha!e the power to ma0e appointmentsd&rin- the recess of the Con-ress, whether !o#&ntar orcompsor, b&t s&ch appointments sha## be effecti!e on#

&nti# disappro!a# b the Commission on Appointments or &nti#the ne't ado&rnment of the Con-ress(

5he reference to para-raph /, Section 16 of Artic#eG)) as additiona# a&thorit for the appointment of petitioner isof !ita# si-nificance to the case at bar( 5he records show thatpetitioners appointment was made whi#e Con-ress was inrecess( .ence, the reference to the said para-raph / ofSection 16, Art( G)) in the appointment e'tended to her()mp#icit in the in!ocation of para-raph /, Section 16, Art( G))as a&thorit for the appointment of petitioner is, thereco-nition b the resident as appointin- a&thorit thatpetitioners appointment re+&ires confirmation b theCommission on Appointments( Inder para-raph /, Section 16,

Art( G)), appointments made b the resident p&rs&ant theretoNsha## be effecti!e on# &nti# disappro!a# b the Commissionon Appointments or &nti# the ne't ado&rnment of theCon-ress(N )f indeed appointments of sectora# representati!esneed no confirmation, the resident need not ma0e anreference to the constit&tiona# pro!isions abo!e"+&oted inappointin- the petitioner, As a matter of fact, the residente'press# s&bmitted petitioners appointment for confirmationb the Commission on Appointments( Considerin- thatCon-ress had ado&rned witho&t respondent Commission onAppointments ha!in- acted on petitioners appointment, saidappointment was enacted to amendthe 4abor Code( )t pro!ided that the Chairman andCommissioners of the 4RC sha## be appointed b theresident and s&bect to CA confirmation

resident A+&ino th&s appointed the Chairman andCommissioners of 4RC(

5his was cha##en-ed b Ca#deron who assai#s the #e-a#itof the permanent appointments made b the resident tothe respondent Chairman and Commissioners of the4RC(

Ca#deron c#aims that RA 671J m&st be comp#ied withsince Con-ress ma b #aw, re+&ire confirmation b theCA on other officers aside from those mentioned in theConstit&tion( .e c#aims that the rin-s in Mison and?a&tista are not re#e!ant here beca&se there is a #aw RA671J which re+&ires CA confirmation of s&chappointments(

So#-en on the other hand contends that RA 671J &nde'pands the confirmation powers of the CA(

)SSI: ;hether Con-ress can, b #aw, re+&ire CA confirmation

of appointments made b the resident, in addition to thosee'press# mentioned in Sec 16(

SC: ( ICS5)5I5)A4(

5he 4RC officers fa## within the /ndsentence of Sec 16, or the2rd-ro&p referred to in the Mison rin- =those whom theresident ma be a&thori*ed b #aw to appoint>(

5he re+&irement of CA confirmation on appointments of theofficers of the 4RC is &nconstit&tiona# beca&se

1> it amends b #e-is#ation the first sentence of the Sec 16 ofthe Constit&tion, addin- thereto appointments re+&irin- CAconfirmation(


11


12/25

/> it amends b #e-is#ation the second sentence of Sec 16 ofthe Constit&tion, b imposin- the confirmation of the CA onappointments which are otherwise entr&sted on# to theresident(

A-ain, the confirmation of the CA is re+&ired on# forpresidentia# appointments mentioned in the first sentence ofSec 16 =or the first -ro&p in the Mison rin->( Inder thesecond sentence, the resident mabe a&thori*ed to appointwitho&t need for CA confirmation(

Chairman and Members of 4RC FR CACF)RMA5)(

A&ticle VII: Section /#! MATI+A# VS! +E"IPA.OA%&il 0 001ACTS:1eb&ua&4 0- /8885he CM4C en banc appointedpetitioner Ma( ( An-e#ina Matiba- as $Actin- irector )G% ofthe d&cation and )nformation epartment =)>(

1eb&ua&4 /- 05hen Chairperson .arriet ( emetrio&renewed the appointment of Matiba- as irector )G of the )in a $temporar capacit(%

1eb&ua&4 /- 0/Commissioner R&fino S(?( a!ierrenewed a-ain the appointment of petitioner to the sameposition in $temporar capacit(%

Ma&c( 00- 0/resident Arroo appointed, ad interim,A#fredo 4( ?enipao as CM4C Chairman, Res&rreccion L(?orra and F#orentino A( 5&ason, r( as CM4C Comissioners,each for a term of 7 ears and e'pirin- on Febr&ar /, /338(?enipao too0 his oath of office and ass&med his position asChairman, whi#e ?orra and 5&ason #i0ewise too0 their oathsand ass&med their positions as Commissioners( 5he ffice ofthe resident s&bmitted to the Commission on Appointmentsthe ad interim appointments of ?enipao, ?orra and 5&asonfor confirmation( .owe!er, the Commission on Appointmentsdid not act on said appointments(

A%&il //- 0/?enipao, in his capacit as CM4C

Chairman, iss&ed a Memorand&m addressed to petitionerMatiba- informin- her that she wod be reassi-ned to the4aw epartment( Ge#ma ( Cinco, irector ))) of ), was a#soinformed that she wod ta0e o!er as officer"in"char-e of the)( ) Comissioner"in"char-e Sadain obected to thereassi-nment and +&estioned ?enipaos fai#&re to constwith him(

A%&il /- 0/etitioner re+&ested ?enipao toreconsiderher re#ief as irector )G of ) and her reassi-nment(etitioner cited Ci!i# Ser!ice Comission Memorand&m Circaro( 7 remindin- heads of -o!ernment of the prohibition totransferrin- emp#oees d&rin- the e#ection period =an / to 12/331>

A%&il /9- 0/?enipao denied her re+&est citin-

CM4C Reso#&tion 2233, which states that his acts werepermitted(

A%&il 0H- 0/etitioner fi#ed an administrati!e andcrimina# case with the 4aw epartment, a##e-in- that herreassi-nment was in !io#ation of se!era# pertinent #aws andres


13/25

meantime, whi#e those with the power of appointment are&nab#e to act ;Pamantasan ng ung!o! ng 7anila s,(nterme!iate Appellate Court )SARGA4 b the Commission on Appointments

b> AIRM5 of Con-ress witho&t the Commissionma0in-

confirmation

In#i0e the residents ad interim appointments, a desi-nationin temporar character ma be re!o0ed antime at thep#eas&re of the appointin- power( 5his is the tpe ofappointment the Constit&tion prohibits fro ma0in- to the 2independent constit&tiona# commissions =CM4C, Ci!i#Ser!ice Commission and the Commission on A&dit>(

Ad interim appointments reinstated from the 192JConstit&tion are necessar for the a!oidance of interr&ption inthe !ita# -o!ernment ser!ices that otherwise wod restfrom pro#on-ed !acancies in -o!ernment offices, inc#&din- the2 constit&tiona# commissions(

)n /331, the Con-ress ado&rned from an&ar 9 to &ne 2

/331( 5here was no time for the confirmation of ?enipao,?orra and 5&ason on March //, /331 prior to the a 1Be#ection( Fai#&re of the president to e'tend their appointmentswod ha!e #eft a !acanc in the CM4C, with on# onef&nctionin- di!ision and therefore pre!entin- +&or&m( 5hiscod ha!e a#so increased the possibi#it of disr&ption d&rin-the e#ection( 5he resident e'ercised her constit&tiona# powerto a!oid this e!i# b ma0in- the said ad interim appointments(

0 "O!etitioner contends that once an ad interim appointee is b"passed b the Commission on Appointments, his ad interimappointment can no #on-er be renewed beca&se this !io#atesArtic#e )"C of the Constit&tion prohibitin- reappointments( Arenewa# of appointment is &ndeniab# prohibit if it isdisappro!ed b the Commission on Appointments( 5he ad

interim appointments in the case at bar, howe!er, is adifferent matter as the were b"passed d&e to #ac0 of time orfai#&re of the Commission to or-ani*e( A fina# decision had notbeen made re-ardin- these appointments( 5he resident isfree to renew s&ch appointments that are b"passed(

B sit&ations where Section 1=/>, Artic#e )"C app#ies andreappointment is no #on-er a##owed:

1> An ad interim appointee, &pon confirmation of theCommission, has a#read ser!ed for 7 ears( .e can no #on-erbe appointed after that(

/> An appointee, after confirmation, ser!es a part of his termb&t resi-ns prior to the conc#&sion of his 7"ear contract(

2> An appointee ser!es the &ne'pired term of someone whodied or resi-ned(

B> Appointee has pre!io&s# ser!ed a term of #ess than 7

ears( .e cannot ta0e o!er a !acanc(

5he ad interim appointments and renewa# of appointments of?enipao, ?orra and 5&ason do not !io#ate the prohibition onreappointments beca&se there were no pre!io&sconfirmations b the Commission on Appointments to be-inwith( A reappointment pres&pposes a pre!io&s confirmedappointment( 5here is no brech of the 7 ear #imit either aseach renewa# of appointment set a fi'ed e'pir of term whichwas Febr&ar /, /338(

;R F C5R4

LACSO";MA#ALLA"ES CO!- I"C!-p#aintiff"appe##ant,!s(

?OSE PANO- 2O"! ?UA" PA?O- in (is ca%acit4 asE$ecutie Sec&eta&4- an* 2O"! ?UA" DE #! RODRI#UE6-in (is ca%acit4 as Sec&eta&4 o) A,&icultu&e an* "atu&alResou&ces-defendants"appe##ees(

Facts:)n 192/, ose Ma-a##anes was a permittee and act&a# occ&pantof a 1,132"hectare past&re #and sit&ated in 5am#an-onM&nicipa#it of ?ansa#an, ro!ince of a!ao(

n an&ar 9, 19J2, Ma-a##anes ceded his ri-hts and intereststo a portion =29/,7J69 hectares> of the abo!e p&b#ic #and top#aintiff(

n Apri# 12, 19JB, the portion Ma-a##anes ceded to p#aintifwas officia## re#eased from the forest *one as past&re #andand dec#ared a-rict&ra# #and(

n an&ar /6, 19JJ, ose aOo and nineteen other c#aimantsapp#ied for the p&rchase of ninet hectares of the re#easedarea(

n March /9, 19JJ, p#aintiff corporation in t&rn fi#ed its ownsa#es app#ication co!erin- the entire re#eased area( 5his wasprotested b ose aOo and his nineteen companions &pon thea!erment that the are act&a# occ&pants of the part thereoco!ered b their own sa#es app#ication(

5he irector of 4ands, fo##owin- an in!esti-ation of theconf#ict, rendered a decision on 21, 19J6 -i!in- d&eco&rse to the app#ication of p#aintiff corporation, anddismissin- the c#aim of ose aOo and his companions( A mo!eto reconsider fai#ed(

n J, 19J7, the Secretar of A-rict&re and at&raReso&rces on appea# b ose aOo for himse#f and hiscompanions he#d that the appea# was witho&t merit anddismissed the same(

5he case was e#e!ated to the resident of the hi#ippines(

n &ne /J, 19J8, 'ec&ti!e Secretar &an ao, NTbUa&thorit of the residentN decided the contro!ers, modifiedthe decision of the irector of 4ands as affirmed b theSecretar of A-rict&re and at&ra# Reso&rces, and =1dec#ared that Nit wod be for the p&b#ic interest thaappe##ants, who are most# #and#ess farmers who depend onthe #and for their e'istence, be a##ocated that portion on whichthe ha!e made impro!ementsDN and =/> directed that thecontro!erted #and =northern portion of ?#oc0 ), 4C Map 17B9

roect o( /7, of ?ansa#an, a!ao, with 4atian Ri!er as thedi!idin- #ine> Nshod be s&bdi!ided into #ots of con!eniensi*es and a##ocated to act&a# occ&pants, witho&t pre&dice tothe corporations ri-ht to reimb&rsement for the cost os&r!ein- this portion(N )t ma be we## to state, at this pointthat the decision &st mentioned, si-ned b the 'ec&ti!eSecretar, was p#anted &pon the facts as fo&nd in saiddecision(

#aintiff corporation too0 the fore-oin- decision to the Co&rt ofFirst )nstance prain- that &d-ment be rendered dec#arin-=1> that the decision of the Secretar of A-rict&re andat&ra# Reso&rces has f# force and effectD and =/> that the


12


14/25

decision of the 'ec&ti!e Secretar is contrar to #aw and ofno #e-a# force and effect(

)ss&e:

;


15/25

Ratio:

5he resident sha## ha!e contro# of a## e'ec&ti!e department,b&rea&s, or offices, e'ercise -enera# s&per!ision o!er a## #oca#-o!ernments as ma be pro!ided b #aw, and ta0e care thatthe #aws be faithf# e'ec&ted(

Corporations owned or contro##ed b the -o!ernment, s&ch asAMARC, parta0e of the nat&re of -o!ernment b&rea&s oroffices, which are administrati!e# s&per!ised b theAdministrator of the ffice of conomic epartment(

5his administrator, whose ran0 is #i0e that of a .ead of an'ec&ti!e epartment, is direct# &nder the resident( 5h&s,the action of the resident to re!erse the decision of as&bordinate is &stified(

De Leon ! Ca&%io

Facts:

an /7 19875he ser!ices of Francisco R( sta!i##o as A-ent

))) and of Cesar R( de 4eon as .ead A-ent in the ationa#?&rea& of )n!esti-ation were terminated b then Minister of

&stice epta#i A( on*a#es in separate rders

Carpio, irector of ?), ref&sed to reinstate them in defianceof the orders of the Ci!i# Ser!ice Commission as referred tohim b the Secretar of &stice=O&*one3> for imp#ementation(

?oth appea#ed to the Re!iew Committee created &nder'ec&ti!e rder o( 17, b&t this bod dec#ined to act on theirpetitions for reconsideration on the -ro&nd that it had #ost

&risdiction with the ratification of the new Constit&tion onFebr&ar /, 1987( 5he were ad!ised instead to see0 re#ieffrom the Ci!i# Ser!ice Commission(

Inab#e to ret&rn to their respecti!e positions, sta!i##o and e4eon came to this Co&rt in separate petitions forman!amus,

Rin-:

etitions are RA5( 5he respondent is hereb RRto immediate# reinstate the petitioners as directed b theSecretar of &stice in imp#ementation of the cha##en-edorders of the Merit Sstems rotection ?oard of the Ci!i#Ser!ice Commission( o costs(

)ss&e:

;


16/25

Art 7 Sec17=>

+laFue&a- et al! ! Alcasi*(R( o( 139B36 September 11, 1998

1acts:

etitioners are officia#s and emp#oees of se!era# -o!ernmentdepartments and a-encies who were paid incenti!e benefitsfor the ear 199/, p&rs&ant to /9/ =Administrati!e Code of

1987> and mnib&s Res )mp#ementin- ?oo0 G"/ of /9/(

an&ar 19, 1992 V resident Ramos iss&ed A /9 a&thori*in-the -rant of prod&cti!it incenti!e benefits for the ear 199/in the ma'im&m amo&nt of 1,333 and reiteratin- theprohibition &nder Section 7 of A /68(

Section B of A /9 : $a## departments, offices and a-encieswhich a&thori*ed pament of C 199/ rod&cti!it )ncenti!e?on&s in e'cess of the amo&nt a&thori*ed &nder Section 1hereof are hereb directed to immediate# ca&se theret&rn

iss&ed 4oca# ?&d-et Circar JJ =4?C JJ>, which

capped the a##owances -i!en to -o!ernment officia#s

at a ma'im&m of 1,333 on#

5he Cit A&ditor ordered the &d-es to ret&rn the

amo&nt recei!ed in e'cess of 1,333, and the

Commission on A&dit =CA> &phe#d this decision in a

motion for reconsideration

5he CA a#so said that Manda&e Cits iss&in- of

a##owances !io#ated the appropriation #aws of

Con-ress, beca&se there is no pro!ision that a##ows

them to -et a##owance mone from the )RA =)nterna#

Re!en&e A##ocation>(

ISSUES ; did not a&thori*e the

settin- of a cei#in- in a##owances( )t on# said $as #on-as finances permit(%

4?C JJ was a#so !oid for not bein- p&b#ished(n#

interna# and interpretati!e re-ations are e'empt

from p&b#ication(

5he ?M cant c#aim that the Manda&e

appropriations !io#ated the -enera# appropriations

act beca&se the ?M fai#ed to:

o Cond&ct a forma# re!iew of the

appropriations

o rder a disappro!a# of the appropriation

within 93 das of receipt of the

appropriation ordinance(

DE"R s! DE"R EMPLO.EES(R( o( 1B97/B: A&-&st 19, /332

1acts: )srae# C( addi =Re-iona# 'ec&ti!e irector of Rfor Re-ion ))> iss&ed a Memorand&m directin- the immediatetransfer of the R )) Re-iona# ffices from Cotobato Citto Eoronada# =former# Marbe#>, to So&th Cotobato( 5his wasiss&ed in p&rs&ance to Admin( rder o( 99"1B, iss&ed bR Secretar Antonio .( Ceri##es( DAO "o! 88;/


17/25

$.)46 a!opts a polic to establish at least one Communit)nvironment an! 4atural 6esources Office ;C)46O< orA!ministrative 1nit per Congressional .istrict ecept in A677an! 4C6, The 6egional )ecutive .irectors ;6).s< are herebauthorie! to realign=relocate eisting C)46Os to implementthis polic,,,

mp#oees of R =members of association CIRA>represented b ?a-&indanai A( Earim fi#ed with the R5Cpetition for n#it of orders with praer for pre#iminarin&nction beca&se of #ac0 of #e-a# basis and -ra!e ab&se of

discretion in re-ards to the Memorand&m iss&ed( 5he R5C-ranted their petiton(

R fi#ed a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to ismissand petition for certiorari in the R5Cs and CAs b&t werea#was denied and dismissed( .ence, the fi#ed in the SC(

5heir c#aim was the *oct&ine o) Fuali)ie* %olitical a,enc4:$Kthe mtifario&s e'ec&ti!e and administrati!e f&nctions ofthe Chief 'ec&ti!e are performed b and thro&-h thee'ec&ti!e departments, and the acts of the Secretaries ofs&ch deptsKare, &n#ess disappro!ed or reprobated b theChief 'ec&ti!e, pres&mpti!e# acts of the Chief 'ec&ti!e(%

Issues:1( ;hether A"99"1B and the Memorand&m

imp#ementin- the same were !a#id

/( ;hether the R Secretar has the a&thorit toreor-ani*e the R

2el*:S( etition is RA5 and pre!io&s ones wereRGRS(

Ratio: App#in- the *oct&ine o) Fuali)ie* %olitical a,enc4,the power of the resident to reor-ani*e the ationa#o!ernment ma !a#id# be de#e-ated to his cabinet memberse'ercisin- contro# o!er a particar e'ec&ti!e department(P!D! /GG0-rants the resident of the hi#ippines thecontin&in- a&thorit to reor-ani*e nationa# -o!ernment( 5hisdecree was not repea#ed or re!o0ed and is consistent with theConstit&tion so it remains operati!e(

MAR5)A4 4A;

Inte,&ate* +a& o) t(e P(ili%%ines I+P s! 6a'o&aFacts: )n !iew of the a#armin- increase in !io#ent crimes inMetro Mani#a, #i0e robberies, 0idnappin-s and carnappin-s,the resident, in a !erba# directi!e ordered the and theMarines to cond&ct oint !isibi#it patro#s for the p&rpose ofcrime pre!ention and s&ppression =4) 3/(

5he resident e'pressed his desire which was to impro!e the

peace and order sit&ation in Metro Mani#a thro&-h a moreeffecti!e crime pre!ention pro-ram inc#&din- increased po#icepatro#s(

5he )? asserts itse#f as the officia# or-ani*ation of Fi#ipino#awers tas0ed with the bo&nden d&t to &pho#d the #aw(

5h&s, on an&ar 17, /333, the )? fi#ed an instant petition toann the 4) 3/ there is no emer-enc sit&ation=dero-ation of Art )) Sec 2> =/> said dep#oment constit&tes aninsidio&s inc&rsion b the mi#itar in a ci!i#ian f&nction of-o!ernment =dero-ation of Art G) Sec J=B>> =2> dep#oment

creates a dan-ero&s tendenc to re# on the mi#itar toperform the ci!i#ian f&nctions of the -o!ernment(

etitioners a#so contend that in mi#itari*in- #aw enforcement inMetro Mani#a, the administration is &nwittin-# ma0in- themi#itar more powerf than what it shod rea## be(

)ss&e: ;hether or not the order of the resident for thedep#oment and &ti#i*ation of the Marines to assist the in#aw enforcement is !a#id(

.e#d: etition has no merit and es it is a !a#id order(

Rationa#e:

5he petitioner fai#ed to s&fficient# show that it is inpossession of the re+&isites of standin- to raise the iss&e inthe petition( 5he mere in!ocation b the )? of its d&t topreser!e the re of #aw and nothin- more, whi#e &ndo&bted#tr&e, is not s&fficient to c#othe it with standin- in this case

5his is too -enera# an interest which is shared b other -ro&psand the who#e citi*enr(

5he resident did not commit -ra!e ab&se of discretionamo&ntin- to #ac0 of &risdiction nor did he commit a !io#ationof the ci!i#ian s&premac c#a&se of the Constit&tion(

5he power of the resident to 0eep the peace is not #imitedmere# to e'ercisin- the commander"in"chief powers in timesof emer-enc b&t is a#so tas0ed with attendin- to the da"to"da prob#ems of maintainin- peace and order and ens&rin-domestic tran+&i#it in times when no forei-n for appears onthe hori*on(

5here is c#ear te't&a# commitment &nder the Constit&tion tobestow on the resident f# discretionar power to ca## o&t thearmed forces and to determine the necessit of s&ch power( )ncomparison to Art 7 Sec 18 which a##ows Con-ress to re!o0eproc#amation of Martia# 4aw or s&spension of the writ ohabeas corp&s, and the Co&rt ma re!iew the s&fficienc othe fact&a# basis thereof, there is no s&ch e+&i!a#ent pro!isiondea#inwith the re!ocation or re!iew of the residents actionto ca## o&t the armed forces(

5he intent of the difference of these two powers is to -ranthe resident the widest #eewa and broadest discretion in&sin- the power to ca## o&t beca&se it is considered as the#esser and more beni-n power compared to the power tos&spend the pri!i#e-e of the writ or habeas corp&s andproc#aim martia# #aw(

5he dep#oment of the Marines does not !io#ate the ci!i#ians&premac c#a&se nor does it infrin-e the ci!i#ian character othe po#ice force beca&se the Marines render nothin- morethan assistance re+&ired in cond&ctin- patro#s( 5he hi#ippinee'perience re!ea#s that it is not a!erse to re+&estin- theassistance of the mi#itar in the imp#ementation and e'ec&tionof certain traditiona## $ci!i#% f&nctions ='( #ections, Adminof the hi#ippine ationa# Red Cross etc(> ;hat we ha!e hereis m&t&a# s&pport and cooperation between the mi#itar andci!i#ian a&thorities, not dero-ation of ci!i#ian s&premac(

Artic#e 7 Section 18 =2?>

anfi#o 4acson !s( Secretar .ernando ere*

=&s the case is prett strai-ht forward( 5here isnt m&chinfo that can be sha!ed off( ) &st rearran-ed it so the iss&esare easier to see>

FAC5S:n Ma 1, /331, resident Macapa-a#"Arroo iss&edroc#amation o( 28 declaring a state of rebellionin theationa# Capita# Re-ion =beca&se of SA 2>( She #i0ewiseiss&ed enera# rder o( 1 directin- the Armed Forces of thehi#ippines and the hi#ippine ationa# o#ice to s&ppress therebe##ion in the CR( +arrantless arrestsof se!era# a##e-ed#eaders and promoters of the $rebe##ion% ere thereaftereffected(

A--rie!ed b the warrant#ess arrests, and the dec#aration of a$state of rebe##ion,% which allegedly gave a semblance oflegality to the arrests, fo&r re#ated petitions were fi#ed


17


18/25

before the Co&rt( 5he fore-oin- petitions assai# thedec#aration of a state of rebe##ion and the warrant#ess arrestsa##e-ed# effected b !irt&e thereof, as ha!in- no basis both infact an in #aw(

etitioner 4&mbao =)n one of the fo&r petitions s&bmitted>,#eader of the eop#es Mo!ement a-ainst o!ert =MA>, forhis part, a&,ues t(at t(e *ecla&ation o) a @state o)&ebellion is iolatie o) t(e *oct&ine o) se%a&ation o)%owe&s, bein- an encroachment on the domain of the

&diciar which has the constit&tiona# prero-ati!e to

$determine or interpret% what too0 p#ace on Ma 1, /331, andthat the dec#aration of a state of rebe##ion cannot be ane'ception to the -enera# re on the a##ocation of the-o!ernmenta# powers

)SSIS:

1> ;

/> 5he warrant#ess arrest feared b petitioners is not basedon the declaration of a state of rebellion( It is based onSection /, 0ule 1 of the 0ules of 'ourt( )t pro!ides thata&thorities ma on# resort to warrant#ess arrests of personss&spected of rebe##ion if the circ&mstances so warrant( A#so,the department of &stice dec#ared that it wi## obtain regulararrants of arrests from the courtsfor a## acts committedprior to and &nti# Ma 1, /331 hich means that

preliminary investigators ill be conducted.

Sanla5as ! E$ecutie Sec&eta&4 Albe&to Ro'uloR W J938J, Febr&ar 2, /33B

Facts:

Some &nior officers and en#isted men of the AFdemanded the resi-nation of the resident, Sec( oefense and Chief of what we 0now as thea0wood M&tin

resident #ater iss&ed roc#amation o( B/7 and

enera# rder o( B, dec#arin- a state of rebe##ionand ca##in- o&t the AF to s&ppress rebe##ion

? the e!enin- of the same da, the a0woodocc&pation ended( .owe!er, the dec#aration of stateof rebe##ion was #ifted on# after J das(

etitioners c#aims that dec#aration of a state orebe##ion tantamo&nt to an e'ercise of Con-ressemer-enc power th&s impairin- #e-is#ati!e power(

Respondents c#aims that the iss&e has ceased withthe #iftin- of the dec#aration

)ss&e:

;


19/25

Monsanto ! Factoran, r

Fernan% C,/,

Issue: whether or not a p&b#ic officer, who has been -rantedan abso#&te pardon b the Chief 'ec&ti!e, is entit#ed toreinstatement to her former position witho&t need of a newappointment(

etitioner Monsanto was con!icted for the crime of estafathro&-h fa#sification of p&b#ic doc&ments b&t e!ent&a## was-i!en abso#&te pardon b the Chief 'ec&ti!e( etitioner prasto be reappointed to the position of which she was appointedto prior to the con!iction since she ar-&es that the pardonerased her dis+&a#ification to ho#d p&b#ic office(

etitioner maintains that when she was iss&ed abso#&tepardon the Chief 'ec&ti!e dec#ared her not -&i#t of thecrime for which she was con!icted

T(e cou&t st&esseswhi#e we are prepared to concede thatpardon ma remit a## the pena# conse+&ences of a crimina#indictment if on# to -i!e meanin- to the fiat that a pardonbein- a presidentia# prero-ati!e shod not be circ&mscribedb #e-is#ati!e action, we do not s&bscribe to the fictitio&s

be#ief that pardon b#ots o&t the -&i#t of an indi!id&a# and thatonce abso#!ed he shod be treated as is he were innocent

ardon -ranted after con!iction frees indi!id&a# from a## thepena#ties and #e-a# disabi#ities and restores him to a## his ci!i#ri-hts( ?&t &n#ess e'press# -ro&nded on the personsinnocence =which is rare>, it cannot brin- bac0 #ost rep&tationfor honest, inte-rit and fair dea#in-( 5his m&st be constant#0ept in mind #est we #ose trac0 of the tr&e character andp&rpose of the pri!i#e-e

ardon does not ipso facto restore a con!icted fe#on to p&b#icoffice necessari# re#in+&ished or forfeited b reason of thecon!iction a#tho&-h s&ch pardon &ndo&bted# his e#i-ibi#it forappointment to that office

Rationale: &b#ic offices are intended primari# for theco##ecti!e protection safet and benefit of the common -ood(5he cannot be compromised to fa!or pri!ate interests( 5oinsist on a&tomatic reinstatement beca&se of a mista0ennotion that the pardon !irt&a## ac+&itted one from theoffense wod be -ross &ntenab#e( A pardon cannot prec#&dethe appointin- power from ref&sin- appointment to anonedeemed to be of bad character a poor mora# ris0 or who is&ns&itab#e b reason of the pardoned con!iction(

For petitioner Monsanto: the abso#&te dis+&a#ification orine#i-ibi#it from p&b#ic office forms part of the p&nishmentprescribed b the RC( ;hen her -&i#t and p&nishment weree'p&n-ed b her pardon this disabi#it was #i0ewise remo!ed(.ence, etitioner ma app# for reappointment to the officewhich was forfeited b reason of her con!iction(

5he pardon -ranted to her has rested in remo!in- herdis+&a#ification form ho#din- p&b#ic emp#oment b&t it cannot-o beond that( 5o re-ain her former post as assistant cittreas&rer of Ca#bao- Cit she m&st reapp# and &nder-oproced&re re+&ired for a new appointment

Se%a&ate o%inion: app#in- Art 26 of the RC it is c#ear thatthe pardon e'tended b the resident to the petitioner did notper se entit#e her to a-ain ho#d p&b#ic office or to s&ffra-eD ' ''

Art( 26( Par!on> its effect, A pardon sha## not wor0 therestoration of the ri-ht to ho#d p&b#ic office, or the ri-ht ofs&ffra-e, &n#ess s&ch ri-hts be e'press# restored b theterms of the pardon(

A pardon sha## in no case e'empt the cprit from thepament of the ci!i# indemnit imposed &pon him b thesentence(

)t is a reco-ni*ed princip#e in p&b#ic #aw that a p&b#ic office isa p&b#ic tr&st( 5he restoration of ri-ht to ho#d p&b#ic office to

one who has #ost s&ch ri-ht b reason of a con!iction in acrimina# case b&t s&bse+&ent# pardoned cannot be #eft tointerference no matter how intense# ar-&ab#e b&t m&st bestated in e'press e'p#icit positi!e and specific #an-&a-e( 5ore+&ire this wod be as0in- too m&ch(

A&t! VII- Sec!/8- 0+

To&&es ! #on3ales=;i#fredo 5orres !( epta#i on*a#es>

1987

Facts:;i#fredo S( 5orres, the petitioner, was con!icted b

CF) of Mani#a of two co&nts of estafa( n Apri# 18, 1979, aconditiona# pardon was -ranted to the petitioner b theresident of the hi#ippines on the condition that petitionewod $not a-ain !io#ate an of the pena# #aws of thehi#ippines( Shod this condition be !io#ated, he wi## beproceeded a-ainst in the manner prescribed b #aw(%etitioner accepted the conditiona# pardon and wasconse+&ent# re#eased from confinement( n Ma /1, 1986the ?oard of ardons and aro#e =?oard> recommended to theresident the cance##ation of the said conditiona# pardon( 5hisis beca&se e!idences were showed to the ?oard re-ardin- thechar-es that were fi#ed a-ainst petitioner after ha!in- beenre#eased thro&-h the conditiona# pardon( Some of the char-esthat were presented are: twent co&nts of estafa in 198/

crime of sedition in 198J, and other char-es from the ?=e(-( -ra!e coercion, i##e-a# possession of firearms, etc(>( n

&ne 1986, the &es%on*ent Ministe& o) ?usticeinformed theresident of the ?oards reso#&tion to cance# the pardon( 5heresident cance##ed the pardon and the Minister of &sticeiss&ed $b a&thorit of the resident% an rder of Arrest andRecommitment a-ainst petitioner( 5he petitioner wasaccordin-# arrested and confined in M&ntin#&pa to ser!e the&ne'pired portion of his sentence(

etitioner now imp&-ns the !a#idit of the rder ofArrest and Recommitment( .e c#aims that he did not !io#atethe conditiona# pardon since he has not been con!icted bfina# &d-ment of the crimes that were reported to the ?oardand that he was not -i!en the opport&nit to be heard beforethe arrest and recommitment to prison, a !io#ation of the d&eprocess c#a&se &nder the Constit&tion(

)ss&e:

;


20/25

cases red that: =1> 5he -rant of pardon and the*ete&'ination o) t(e con*itions o) a con*itional %a&*ona&e %u&el4 e$ecutie acts which are not subject to

ju*icial sc&utin4, =/> 5he determination of the occ&rrence ofa breach of a condition of pardonK 'a4 be eit(e& a %u&el4e$ecutie actB un*e& Section his fai#&re to appea# the administrati!e decisionwas tantamo&nt to a wai!er or ren&nciation of hisri-ht to bac0 wa-es < $no ser!ice no pa% re

=c> )Cwas -ranted for reinstatement on#

=d> bac0 wa-es on# awarded if respondent ise'onerated from the administrati!e char-e or thathis s&spension or dismissa# is dec#ared i##e-a# o&n&stified b the co&rt(

Issue: ;


21/25

,oe&n'ent se&ice entitles (i' to bac5 wa,es! 5his ismeant to afford re#ief to petitioner who is innocent from thestart and to ma0e reparation for what he has s&ffered as arest of his &n&st dismissa# from the ser!ice(

Sec G/ELla'as VS O&bos an* Oca'%o III

1acts=1> Rodo#fo 4#amas is the Gice o!ernor of the ro!ince of

5ar#ac, whi#e Mariano campo ))) is the o!ernor(=/> scar rbos is the 'ec&ti!e Secretar(

=2> A comp#aint was fi#ed a-ainst campo ))) b 5ar#ac ?oardMembers in the epartment of 4oca# o!ernment =4> for!io#ations of the 4oca# o!ernment Code and Anti"raft andCorr&pt ractices Act( 4 Secretar fo&nd him to be -&i#t ofserio&s ne-#ect of d&t and ab&se of a&thorit in enterin- intoa contract with 4in-0od 5ar#ac Fo&ndation, )nc( =45F)> whichwas disad!anta-eo&s to 5ar#ac( .e was sentenced to 93"dapena#t of s&spension(

=B> 'ec&ti!e Secretar rbos denied appea# b campo )))and affirmed 4 decision(

=B> 4#amas too0 oath of office as the Actin- o!ernor(

=J> campo ))) fi#ed for motion for reconsideration of rbosdecisionD he proceeded to then e'ercise f&nctions as o!ernorbeca&se he c#aims the motion of reconsideration was pendin-,

and there was no fina# &d-ment(=6> campo ))) withdrew his motion for reconsideration, andinstead app#ied for -rant of e'ec&ti!e c#emenc( .e s&bmitteddoc&ments re-ardin- s&ccess of the 45F) and that he hasser!ed 63 das o&t of his 93"da s&spension( 'ec&ti!eSecretar rbos then iss&ed a reso#&tion -rantin- his pardon(

=7> 4#amas fi#es petition for re!iew in this Co&rt(

Issue;hether or not there was -ra!e ab&se of discretionamo&ntin- to #ac0 of &risdiction when 'ec&ti!e Secretarrbos -ranted e'ec&ti!e c#emenc to campo ))), -i!en that=1> e'ec&ti!e c#emenc can on# be -ranted b resident inc&i'inal cases and not in a*'inist&atie cases s&ch asthis one, and that =/> c#emenc can on# be -ranted oncecon!iction is fina# and the withdrawa# of motion for

reconsideration means that there is sti## no fina# con!iction(

2el*etition is witho&t merit( resident did not act with -ra!eab&se of discretion when e'ec&ti!e c#emenc was -ranted too!ernor campo )))(

Ratio=1> 5here was fina# con!iction(

a( ;ithdrawa# of the motion for reconsideration =and insteadfi#in- of a -rant of e'ec&ti!e c#emenc> rendered the 4decision which fo&nd him -&i#t to be a fina# &d-ment(

b( rant of c#emenc meant anwa that the motion forreconsideration is p&t to an end(

=/> 'ec&ti!e c#emenc can a#so be -ranted in anadministrati!e case(

a( etitioner 4#amas himse#f said that campo ))) was$con!icted in an administrati!e case%(

b( ;here the #aw does not distin-&ish, Co&rt m&st not do soas we##( Sec 19 does not distin-&ish where e'ec&ti!ec#emenc can on# be -ranted(

c( )f resident can -rant pardons and reprie!es to moreserio&s cases, wh not in administrati!e cases which are #essoffensi!e@

d( Inder Sec 17 where resident sha## ha!e power of contro#and s&per!ision o!er a## e'ec depts(, b&rea&s, and offices, it

has been defined that resident can then s&bstit&te hedecision for the rin- of a s&bordinate(

A&ticle G Section /801! D&ilon s! Cou&t o) A%%eals

1acts: 5he epartment of &stice has bro&-ht s&it to ann the

ecision of Co&rt of Appea#s, prohibitin- theo!ernment from p&rs&in- crimina# actions a-ainst the

pri!ate respondents for the death of )rene 4on-no and4one# Cha!e* d&rin- ear# Martia# 4aw(

)n 1972 Ra aredes and Rodo#fo an*on werechar-ed with do&b#e m&rder before Mi#itarCommission o( 2B(

/7, 1972 the Mi#itar ac+&itted aredes andsentenced an*on to #ife imprisonment with hard #abor

March /J, 1978 an*on was re#eased and was p#aced&nder ho&se arrest(

)n 1988 Secretar of &stice Sedfre rdone* directedState rosec&tor A&re#io 5rampe to cond&ct are#iminar in!esti-ation a-ainst the pri!aterespondents for the m&rders(

ri!ate respondents mo!ed for dismissa# on the-ro&nds that an*on has been e'tended abso#&te

pardon b resident Marcos and ha!in- beenpre!io&s# con!icted cannot be tried anew, and aredeshas been ac+&itted(

5rampe denied both re+&ests and reconsiderationha!in- #i0ewise denied, the pri!ate respondents wentto the Co&rt of Appea#s on rohibition, CA -rantedprohibition(

Issue:;hether or not the o!ernment can p&rs&e crimina# actionsa-ainst pri!ate respondents despite an*on ha!in- beenpre!io&s# con!icted and -ranted e'ec&ti!e pardon(

2el*:etition ), 5he ecision of Co&rt of Appea#s isAFF)RM(

!idence =the testimonies of residentia# 'ec&ti!eAsst( &an 5&!era and ep&t residentia# 'ec&ti!eAsst( oa+&in Gen&s, r(> shows that res( Marcos-ranted abso#&te pardon to an*on

)f res( Marcos indeed ordered an*ons re#ease after 6ears, res( Marcos &na!oidab# comm&ted an*onsimprisonment to 6 ears a#tho&-h an*on sha## remain&nder $ho&se arrest%(

)f an*ons sentenced has been comm&ted, then hehas ser!ed his sentence, it e'tin-&ishes crimina#iabi#it partia## and has the effect of chan-in- thepena#t to a #esser one(

Comm&tation does not ha!e to be in specific form( )t iss&fficient that an*on was !o#&ntari# re#eased in 1978

with terms or conditions( Arrest is not a pena#t so the Co&rt does not conside

the ho&se arrest as a contin&ation of an*onssentence(

)rrespecti!e of the pardon, an*on has ser!ed hissentence and he can no #on-er be rein!esti-ated fothe same offense, m&ch more &nder-o f&rtheimprisonment to comp#ete his ser!ice(

4)M)5S CI5)G C4MC

Peo%le ! Salle


/1


22/25

Facts:

ones 4aw: =sec /1> that the s&preme e'ec&ti!e power sha##be !ested in an e'ec&ti!e officer, whose officia# tit#e sha## be$5he o!ernor"enera# of the hi#ippine )s#ands% .e is hereb!ested with e'ec&ti!e power to -rant pardons and reprie!esand remit fines and forfeit&res( =pardon can be -ranted atan time after the commission of the offense, either before orafter con!iction ( Framers of the constit&tion tho&-ht this&ndesirab#e and -a!e pardonin- power / a)te& coniction!

192J Constit&tion =Sec 13 ,Art 7> 5he resident sha## ha!e thepower to -rant reprie!es, comm&tations and pardons, andremit fines and forfeit&res, after con!iction, for a## offenses,0 e$ce%t in cases o) i'%eac('ent-&pon s&ch conditionsand with s&ch restrictions deem proper to impose( .e sha##ha!e the power to -rant amnest with the conc&rrence of theCon-ress(

1972 Constit&tion: the M ma, e'cept in cases ofimpeachment -rant reprie!es, comm&tations, and pardons,remit fines and forfeit&res, a)te& )inal coniction, and withthe conc&rrence of the ationa# Assemb#

1981 amendment:: 5he resident ma, e'cept in cases ofimpeachment, -rant reprie!es, comm&tations and pardons,remit fines and forfeit&res and with the conc&rrence of the?atasan- pambansa, ,&ant a'nest4

$ e!en in a appea#, e'ec&ti!e c#emenc andpardon ma be -i!en, if accepted, then theappea# is therefore abandoned(

1987 consti, =Sec 19, Art 7>: 'cept in cases of impeachment,-rant R, C, and , RF, and F after con!iction b fina# &d-ment(.e sha## a#so ha!e the power to -rant amnest with theconc&rrence of a maorit of a## the Members of Con-ress( so as to pre!ent the president from e'ercisin- 'ec&ti!e powerin dero-ation of the &dicia# power(

$ where the president is not restricted b theConstit&tion, not e!en Con-ress can impose

an restriction to pre!ent a presidentia#fo##(

$ con!iction m&st be of F)A4 IM5

no appea# is seasona## perfected

the acc&sed commences to ser!ethe sentence

the ri-ht to appea# is wai!ede'cept where death pena#t isimposed

when the acc&sed app#ies forprobation thereb wai!in- his ri-htto appea#(

)ss&e: the pi!ota# iss&e this raised is the enforceabi#it of apardon -ranted to an acc&sed d&rin- the pendenc of hisappea# from a &d-ment of con!iction b the tria# co&rt(

.e#d: that the con!iction b fina# &d-ment #imitation &nderSec19 Art 7 of the present constit&tion prohibits the -rant ofpardon, whether f# or conditiona#, to an acc&sed d&rin- thependenc of his appea# from his con!iction of tria# co&rt( 5heconditiona# pardon -ranted to the said appe##ant sha## bedeemed to ta0e effect on# &pon the -rant of s&ch withdrawa#=of the appea#> co&rt -a!e co&nse# 23 das to do so(

A&ticle VII > Sec /8 > Case


23/25

)))( W(4 t(e TRO was issue*: ;hen the Ger Ir-ent Motionwas fi#ed, Con-ress was a#read in traditiona# recess b&t Chief

&stice a!ide ca##ed the Co&rt to a Specia# Session( 5hea##e-ations shod not be dismissed as mere specationsbeca&se the a##e-ations were made &nder oath and wide#p&b#ici*ed b the media and the present Con-ress is differentfrom the Con-ress that enacted the eath ena#t 4aw =123new members sti## hadnt e'pressed their !iews on capita#p&nishment>( Seein- as how the Co&rt bare# had J ho&rs toreso#!e the motion, it too0 an e'treme# ca&tio&s stance b

temporari# restrainin- the e'ec&tion of the petitioner( 5hemaorit of the co&rt Co&rt fe#t that since a #ife was at sta0e, itneeded certaint that the #e-is#at&re wi## not chan-e thecirc&mstance of the petitioner(

.owe!er, it has become c#ear that Con-ress wi## not repea#the death pena#t #aw seein- as how resident strada wi##!eto an #aw repea#inthis, the reso#&tions of Con-ressmano#e* et( a# are a#so a-ainst the repea# of the #aw and thatSenator Rocos reso#&tion to repea# it on# bears his andSenator imente#s si-nat&res(

)n !iew thereof, the co&rt -rants the p&b#ic respondentsIr-ent Motion for reconsideration and #ifts the 5R( 5he Co&rta#so orders the tria# co&rt &d-e to set anew the date fore'ec&tion of the petitioner(

R5A5) F A4)S

Li' ! E$ecutie Sec&eta&4

Facts:

5his case in!o#!es a petition for certiorari an prohibition aswe## as a petition"ininter!ention, prain- that therespondents be restrained from proceedin- with the so"ca##ed$?a#i0atan 3/"1% an that after d&e notice and hearin-, that

&d-ment be rendered iss&in- a permanent writ of in&nctionand


24/25

5here are two pro!isions in the Constit&tion that ta#0 abo&tinternationa# a-reements and treaties as we## as theproced&res for them to be considered as #aws name# Sec( /1of Art( 7 and Sec( /J of Art( 18( )t is important to note thatSec( /1 of Art( 7 is the -enera# re with re-ard internationa#a-reements and treaties which re+&ires the conc&rrence of/


25/25

pro!ision in the 5reat mandatin- that an e'traditee shodbe 0ept in the dar0 abo&t char-es a-aist him &nti# he isbro&-ht to tria#( And #ast#, a proposed e'tradite shod bea##owed to ha!e a reasonab#e opport&nit to prepare for tria#

/J

IA 2008 Constitutional asdfLaw I Digests (Executive)

Documents

Transcript of IA 2008 Constitutional asdfLaw I Digests (Executive)