Executive Power

Context: Corazon Aquino, upon the people power, became the President after President Marcos was ousted in the position. When he died in Honolulu, Hawaii, Marcoses filed for a petition to be ordered the necessary travel documents for them to return t the Philippines, arguing that:

Petition: Barring against the right of a Filipino to return the country of their birth, constitutional protection of their rights, barring the constitution, abuse of power of the president, residual power to dictatorship

Defense: NO. Petition dismissed. Will impose threats to national security in the PH

Held: Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution has no similarities with the implied residual power of the President under 1987 constitution.

Marcos v. Manglapus

When Duterte assumed the presidency, he ordered to bury the remains of President Marcos to Libingan ng Mga Bayani

Petitioners, including Ocampo (human rights advocate) petitioned for the rights of the taxpayers and barring of the constitution.

Held: Political question; discretion of the president as the commander-in-chief of the military; the requirement was met, not a moral issue, but the law can only decide on what’s legal; judicial review

Ocampo vs. Enriquez

In May 11, 1998, but was betrayed by Ilocus Sur Governor Luis Chavit Singson. It ignited the public eye, and the investigation of the Senate and the HoR. The HoR conducted an investigation. He was pressured by the public, including social leader, ramos, Aquino, and even Arroyo, and religious leaders to resign. January 2, 2000, he left the Malacanang. Hence, the Senate has already set for his impeachment and recognize Arroyo as the de jure president.

According to him, the presidency of Arroyo is not valid because he only decided to temporarily resign in his writing to the Congress. However, the Congress used the “totality” rule, which showed that he left the office, which calls for a new president.

Held: Presidency of Arroyo valid, Executive immunity cannot protect him or they may betray the public trust; Prejudicial publicity (not supported sufficiently by Estrada), he was not able to prove that the prejudicial publicity influenced the investigation of his case

Estrada v. Arroyo

President Aquino filed a libel case against newspaper publishers and editors; Balancing Freedom of Press v. Power of the a person in position.

Arg: Deprivation of If a president cant be sued, then they should also cannot sue. This should be a one-way street.

Issue: Whether or not the President can sue?

Held: Sided with the president. The president cannot be sued and can sue. Personal decision not with the weight of the office. The Pres. waived its immunity if he/she participates in trial. Protection of the abuse. Independent judiciary even with the pressure of a popular president.

J. Gutierrez: Protection of those who serve the free and independent press against the possibility of abuse of power

Soliven v. Makasiar

Sixto Brilliante’s petition against COMELEC resolution’s 6712 on the electronic transmission of results (unofficial) of election results for presidency to prevent the tampering (dagdag bawas) of election results; Be doing it despite of the credibility of computerized election (3 phases), Stepping over the constitutional mandate to the Congress to canvass the votes; misappropriation of fund

Brilliantes v. COMELEC

Counting Congressman Lopez; 2004 Presidential Election in Full Swing (Arroyo, Poe, Lacson, Villanueva); Forming a Joint Committe to Pre-screen Election Certs before the Congress; May undermine the power of the Court

Certiorari: 1) delegating the core duty of the Congress, subcontracting the duty 2) changing the consti without amending it, 3) the JC deprived him and voters of full voice, 4) lack of a crucial duty of Congress

Defense: Pushed back hard. Committees are essential for a functioning Congress. Congress still has the say. The canvassing is of the Congress, not the committee; not a political question, but a justiciable question (constitution kase).

Canvassing rules - 11 members from the Senate; 11 from the House (None can run for VP and P). 1) Verify the authenticity of election certificates, 2) Preliminary vote count, 3) can be challenged. (1ST PASS)

Held: Petition dismissed. (efficiency v. transparency). J. David: Congress has the right to set up their rules. Logistical challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that the congressional rules on canvassing were valid and upheld the legislative branch's discretion in regulating its internal procedures. The decision emphasized the principle of separation of powers, asserting that the judiciary should not interfere with the internal workings of Congress unless there was clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion or constitutional violations

J. Cuno: Open debate and accuracy is crucial, making sure that the votes are transparent.

Lopez vs. Senate

Atty. Pormento filed a case questioning the reelection of Estrada on 2010 election after his 1998 presidency; Section 4, Article 7, 1987 Consti

Held: Moot and no relief, denied due course, hypothetical and speculative, no judicial controversy, he did not win anyway

Pormento v. Estrada

Section 13, Conflict of Interest, Commissioner on Presidential Commission on Good Government while being the President of Doromal International Corporation who contracts millions to DepEd and National Manpower and Youth Corporation, Tanodbayan; first info, dismissed because was not filed to the ombudsman, and then was refiled;

due process; fair hearing, executive power is not unlimited; suspension even without preliminary investigation; it may be ordered instead

Doromal v. Sandigangbayan

1980s (after Marcos’ regime). 1987 Constitution was a response to the blatant abuse of power; Pres. Aquino Exec. Order 284. Section 13. (some changes: cabinet members, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries hold more than one position in the govt

Defense: Open to interpretation.

Issue: Constitutionality of the Exec. 284.

Appointed officials?

Held: Unconsti. The framers want strict rules to top officials. President and cabinet (NO.) The consti has a purpose. No loopholes. Broader intepreptation can make a corrupt and less effective government. Exception: Ex officio positions (extension of their job) Essential to do the main job. Conflict of interest. No unjust enrichment.

What if those who already in the seat? De facto officer. Those who worked will get their benefits.

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

NHA Boards; Not the name but function, if the main are not entitled to compensation, 200k plus compensation; article 7, Section 13; the alternates are also not entitled to; certiorari;

Petition: Below the deputies or assistants of cabinet; cited the Civil Union Liberties v. Exec. Secretary.

COA: Alternatives are representatives. Function over name. The alternates are extensions of the cabinet. Allowing so would hurt public trust. The alternatives would have better rights than the main officials.

Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit

Agra, Acting Secretary of Chief Justice and Acting SolGen; Section 13 of Art. 7; Only in acting. Prohibition applies regardless. De facto officer doctrine: the appointment is flawed, but will consider actions as legitimate for stability. Separation of Power.

• Petitioner's Argument: Agra's concurrent appointments violated Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Respondents' Argument: Agra's designations were temporary and did not constitute holding multiple offices in the strict constitutional sense.

Held: Unconstitutional whether appointment or temporary. But his actions were valid.

Funa v. Agra

President Carlos P. Garcia’s rushed temporary appointments before Diosdado Macapagal; December 1951 (about to leave office); 350 ad interim appointment (temporary replacements; Aytona (Governor of the Central Bank), December 29, 1951 oath of office. Administrative Order 02 to cancel all appointments made after december 13th. Aytona and Castillo went to the office of CB.

Aytona: Appointed. Periodt.

Macapagal: “Midnight appointment” Abused power.

Held: Exceptional circumstances. Macapagal’s favor. Abuse. Irregular appointments that may affect the current administration is invalid.

Dissent: Removal should have legal grounds. He cannot fire just that.

Aytona v. Castillo

Bunch of judicial vacancy before the leaving of Ramos, appointment of judgments (Sec. 15, Art. 7) right before elections (2 months before), functioning judiciary vs. shenanigans. Valenzuela took an oath of office before the decision of the SC.

Petitioner: The provision should only apply to the executive.

Held: Appointments in general (not just the executive or judiciary). Prohibition by Sec. 15 before the election. By history. Struck down the appointments. Midnight appointment (Basis: Aytona v. Castillo). The Pres. only has to make it smooth.

In re Appointments dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Valenzuela and Hon. Vallarta

Consti. Conundrum: Midnight Appointment Ban v. Any vacancy including the Chief Justice must be filled in 90 days; Chief Justice Puno retires;

For the Ban: Potential abuse of power during a heated election, Public Trust, Level playing field

Against: Need for a fully functioning supreme court; instability;

SC: The Midnight appointment ban does not apply to the Chief Justice; JBC (safeguard): Nominates the Chief Justice, reduces the risk of bias; Unanimous decision. Stability of the court. The appointment of the Chief Justice is exempted from the Section 16.

Nachura: Timing of the case, the court should wait the list of nominees before the trial, “actual controversy.”

 De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council

Binamira (he thought that he was appointed by the Philippine Tourism), Aquino: only I can appoint the general manager (for Garucho); appointment (permanent seat) vs. designation (temporary).

W/N the President can revoke the position of Binamira?

Binamira was just designated. The minister cannot delegate the appointment. Only the president can approve the GenMan of the PTA.

Aquino initially approved the board of director; Alter Ego Doctrine; the Minister can designate but when the President does not approve, the position can be revoked; Principle of Non-delegation of Power; Clear Communication/Do not assume.

Binamira v. Garucho

• Historical Context: Framers of the 1987 Constitution intended to limit the Commission on Appointments' power compared to the 1935 Constitution.

The President has to get consent from CA in appointing Commissioner on Customs. 1935 Consti: Strict. The CA asserted its power to give consent before the validity of the appointment.

Held: Also and alone are typo. To the president’s favor. Historical contexts, the debates, the wordings. Unless the position explicitly provides, the president can appoint. The PH president has broad power.

Sarmiento v. Mison

Mary Concepcion Bautista, Acting Chairman of Commision on Human Rights by President Aquino, permanent(ed), took an oath, assumed office

CA: Said she has to be confirmed by the group. Legislature, but she refused their authority. CA: rejected his ad interim appointment. Unclear. Appointment or temporary; E.0. 163A (The President can remove officers to his will.)

The President appointed another Acting, and there are already two acting; certiorari.

1) Whether the president can just submit an appointment?

Held: The President cannot just give power to the CA if the constitution did not give them (Sec. 16). There is no vacancy to fill with the temporary appointment. 7 year term (discretionary to the President), but the EO is unconstitutional, the CHR has to be independent from the Gov’t. Became the official president.

Bautista v. Salonga

Sectoral representative for women; Ensuring that sectors have seats in the Congress; Quintos: She cited precedent cases in favor of her.

SolGen: Since the consti grants the president, it grants the president to ask consent from CA.

Issue: Whether Quintos’ appointment needed appointment from CA?

Held: Solicitor-general; Confirmation is needed. Opportunity to clarify. Unless the appointment is explicitly exempt, the CA has the authority. Despite it, it was dismissed as moot because when the decision came out, the Congress adjourned. Clarified the purpose of the CA on preventing the abuse of power. The precedent does not bind to every cases. Open to new interpretation, that the law changes.

Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments

NLRC; Bautista v. Salonga; Constitutionality of Republic Act 6715) that amended the Labor Code to require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments for appointments to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC);

WN the Congress may assert its influence in the appoitments?

Held: The Constitution’s intent is the core. Congress cannot just insert its influence. The consti could’ve said so if the Congress can have a degree of influence in the appointment. While the Congress can create law, the SC can judge the constitutionality of laws. The court ruled that the appointment in NLRC is under the second sentence in the provision which does not require the confirmation of the CA.

Calderon v. Carale

The law that created the BSP appointment needs the confirmation of the CA (Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653) ; quo warranto proceeding; Tarrosa’s petition; Calderon v. Carale: the Congress does not have the right to assert influence in the appointment.

Held: Tarrosa had no legal standing. He is not affected. He does not even have the legal concern to the governorship.

Tarrosa v. Singson

Appointment in Philippine Coastguard, Questioning of the Confirmation, Atty. Soriano filed the petition, where his legal standing was questioned. You have to have a right tampered; but the court ruled to discuss the problem. They look'ed at its history.

W/N: Did the court consider the coastguard military enough to be part of the exclusive list in the Section 16?

Held: Looked at the Coastguard - Department of Traspo; Plain Language Rule;

Soriano v. Lista

Enrile and other secretaries questioned the constitutionality of the President’s designation of acting department secretaries since President arroyo did not ask for consent.

Held: The court ruled that the President, for acting appointments, do not need the consent of the CA. It also noted that the president may appoint whoever thinks is qualified, sometimes on the personal trust, compatibility. The length only has to be one year. Oath of office.

Pimentel v. Ermita

Flores and other former officers of Subic Bases assailed the constitutionality of the Conversion and Development Act of 1992; which appointed Maypr Gordon of Olongapo City as CEO of SBMA. They cited that he cannot act both as the Mayor and another position.

Held: The appointment was within the 45 day from the election, which a clear violation. Not an ex officio position. Usurps the appointment authority of the President.

Flores v. Drilon

Matibag was an employee in COMELEC and she was reassigned by the ad interim COMELEC chairman Benipayo. She was displeased with it and has found a loophole against Benipayo when she knew that he is an ad interim chairman for several reappointments. She prayed for his removal for the office.

Held: The court ruled that the reappointments were valid as that is part of the fuctions of an appointee, and rejected the idea of the unconstitutionality of the reappointments as the constitution only prohibits that to those who were confirmed by the CA. As ad interim, he continues his office until the next adjournment of Congress or until the CA disapproves.

 Matibag v. Benipayo

Luego was appointed by mayor solon of cebu, as administrative officer II. It was approved by the Civil Service Law. However, the Civil Service wanted to revoke the position and decided that Tuozon is more fit of the position. Subsequently, it Tuozon was appointed by the mayor. Luego filed for a petition asserting for the unjust removal of the CSE of her in office. It was lifted to the SC.

Issue: Whether or not the CSE acted in grave abuse of discretion in retracting the appointment of Luego?

Held: Yes, the CSE is only is only supposed to “approve” and not control the nature of appointment. The act of approval did not grant the CSE to revoke the appointment. Thus, actions like this would result to a destabilized government offices.

 Luego v. Civil Service Commission

Succession of Chairmanship in PRC; PD 223; Section 15 Art 7.

Pobre v. Mendieta

Supervise vs. Control; Constitutionality of Sec. 187 of LGC and Ordinance No. 7779 of Manila Revenue Code

Drilon v. Lim

Makati Mayor’s crimes: bribery, extortion, abuse of control, unauthorized law practice, alter ego doctrine, executive power, Section 2188 of the RAC.

Villena v. Secretary of Interior

1,000 plus hectares of agricultural land in Bansalan, Davao, Sales Permit, Application of Pano, Reversal, Same weight as of president’s order

Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano

Iligan v. Lanao del Norte (Section 69, CA Act. 141, Public Land Act)

City of Iligan v. Director of Lands

Channel 4 of ABS CBN; Agreement to Arbitrate; Freedom Constitution; Corazon Aquino, National Media Production Center Th

Gascon v. Arroyo

Muntinlupa Public Market; PD 175; Regulatory Rules; Does not exceed to disbanding without due process.

Kilusangbayan v. Dominguez

Custom-collector; Pepsi, Preventive Suspension, Civil Service Rules of 1959, No Bypassing Statutory Rules

Ang-Angco v. Castillo

Traffic Storage Department, Administratuve Investigation, Improper release of Goods, Control of the Executive to All Executive Bureaus including reversal, RA 1345 (Gen. Mag. and B of D)

National Marketing Corp. v. Arca

Executive Order No. 1, Equal Protection Clause

Biraogao v. PTC

Areal Target Zoning or Saturation Drives; Human Rights Violation, Arrests. Home Invasion, Abuse Section 17 and 18, Bill of Rights

Guazon v. De Villa

Bolo Combat Team

Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff

Military Commission No. 34; Assassination of President Ferdinand Marcis; Electrocution; Moot and Academic because of the release from detention, Section 18 does not block constitutional mandates; Military Courts to Civilians

Olaguer v. Military

Western District Police PATROLMAN, Two Counts of Murder, Civilian Character of the PNP; GCM grave abuse; PNP Law

Quilona v. General Court Martial

Senate Inquiry of Two Members of AFP without presidential approval; Constitutional Rights of transparency and legislative inquiry

Gudani v. Senga

Oakwood Premiere Apartment in Makati; 300 junior officers of AFP, Proc. No. 427 and Gen. Order 4 to supress rebellion, Abuse of Power, Section 18 is self executing.

SANLAKAS v. Reyes

1017, State of National Emergency, threats of destabilization, abuse of power, free speech, petition, assembly, press, Gen. 5. Subject to limitation; Separation of PowerRising

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo

Rising crime rates; Estrada; Robbery kidnapping carnapping, marine plus pnp, civilian authority and character, no legal standin, Task Force Tulungan Letter to Memorandum, Discretion of the CinChief

IBP v. Zamora

Maguindanao Martial Law by Arroyo, 57 civilain, Ampatuan Massacre, Except identified bu MILF, Proc. No. 1959, Lifting of the Proclamation, Moor

Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo

Initial Proclamarion of Marawi Seige, Proc. 216, the necessity of Martial law is on the discretion of the President and the Congress, violence, destruction to propety ISIS, suspension of writ of hc; Sec. 18

Lagman v. Medialdea

Extension of Martial Law in Mindanao by Duterte

Lagman v. Pimentel

Monsanto v. Factoran

Murder and Destrcuctive Arson, Did not withdraw the appeal, no effect of the conditional pardon, Section 19: the pardon is after the final judgement or when the appeal is dismissed; separation of power

People v. Salle

Supervising Lineman in Telecommunications in Lucena; Absolute Pardon based on Innocence; Qualified Theft, Clemency, COA denied the back wages, entitlement of back wages is only for the ones which cases are dismissed and not by convivtion unline sabello.

Garcia v. Commission on Audit

PElementary Principal 1 in Talisay, RICD, 840 pesos, Concicted, Not entitled to Back Wages, Anti Graft and Corruption Practices

Sabello v. DECS

Conditional Parole, Estafa, Board of Parole and Pardon, No Need for Judicial Conviction

Torres v. Gonzales