Angeles vs.

Gaite

Issue
W/N Memorandum Circular No. 58 is unconstitutional since it
diminishes the power of the President?

DOCTRINE:
ART. VII, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.

Facts
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.
8.

Petitioner was given custody of her grand niece, Maria

Mercedes Vistan, to take care and provide for as she grew up.
Petitioner became attached to such child and took care of her
as her own. Petitioner also gave the same attention to the halfbrother of the grand niece. The latter would seek petitioners
financial support ranging from daily subsistence to
hospitalization expenses.
After one incident wherein the half-brother of the grand niece,
Michael Vistan, failed to do an important task, the petitioner
and the Michael Vistan had a falling out. Since no more support
was given to the latter, he took his half-sister away. He brought
her to different provinces while asked the help of certain
individuals to mislead the petitioner and the police.
The police was able to apprehend Michael Vistan through a
dragnet operation.
The petitioner filed a complaint against Michael Vistan before
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Malolos, Bulacan for
five counts of Violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610,
otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act, and for four counts of
Violation of Sec. 1 (e) of PD 1829. She likewise filed a
complaint for Libel against Maria Cristina Vistan, aunt of
Michael and Maria Mercedes.
The Investigating prosecutor issued a resolution to continue
with the filing of the case. This was however denied by the
provincial prosecutor who also issued a decision to dismiss the
case. Petitioner filed a petition for review with USEC.
Teehankee but was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for
review with SEC Perez and was also denied
She tried appealing to the Office of the President but was
dismissed by such on the ground of Memorandum Circular No.
58 which bars an appeal or a petition for review of
decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of Justice except
those involving offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death
Petitioner went to the CA which sustained the dismissal
Petitioner
contends
that
such
Memo
Circular
was
unconstitutional since t diminishes the power of control of the
President and bestows upon the Secretary of Justice, a
subordinate officer, almost unfettered power.

Ruling
NO, it does not diminish the power of the President
The President's act of delegating authority to the Secretary of
Justice by virtue of said Memorandum Circular is well within the purview of
the doctrine of qualified political agency, long been established in our
jurisdiction.
Under this doctrine, which primarily recognizes the establishment of a
single executive, "all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department; the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive; and, except
in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution 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 CA cannot be deemed to have committed any error in
upholding the Office of the President's reliance on the Memorandum
Circular as it merely interpreted and applied the law as it should be.
Memorandum Circular No. 58, promulgated by the Office of the
President on June 30, 1993 reads:
In the interest of the speedy administration of justice, the
guidelines enunciated in Memorandum Circular No. 1266 (4
November 1983) on the review by the Office of the
President of resolutions/orders/decisions issued by the
Secretary of Justice concerning preliminary investigations
of criminal cases are reiterated and clarified.
No appeal from or petition for review of
decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary of
Justice on preliminary investigations of criminal
cases shall be entertained by the Office of the
President,
except
those
involving
offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death x x x.
Henceforth, if an appeal or petition for review does not
clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the
President, as set forth in the immediately preceding
paragraph, it shall be dismissed outright x x x.
It is quite evident from the foregoing that the President himself set the
limits of his power to review decisions/orders/resolutions of the Secretary

of Justice in order to expedite the disposition of cases. Petitioner's

argument that the Memorandum Circular unduly expands the power of the
Secretary of Justice to the extent of rendering even the Chief Executive
helpless to rectify whatever errors or abuses the former may commit in the
exercise of his discretion is purely speculative to say the least. Petitioner
cannot second- guess the President's power and the President's own
judgment to delegate whatever it is he deems necessary to delegate in
order to achieve proper and speedy administration of justice, especially
that such delegation is upon a cabinet secretary his own alter ego.
BUT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS:
Justice Jose P. Laurel, in his ponencia in Villena, makes this clear
that
There are certain constitutional powers and
prerogatives of the Chief Executive of the Nation which
must be exercised by him in person and no amount of
approval or ratification will validate the exercise of any of
those powers by any other person. Such, for instance, is his
power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and proclaim
martial law (par. 3, sec. 11, Art. VII) and the exercise by
him of the benign prerogative of mercy (par. 6, sec. 11,
idem).
These restrictions hold true to this day as they remain embodied in
our fundamental law. There are certain presidential powers which arise out
of exceptional circumstances, and if exercised, would involve the
suspension of fundamental freedoms, or at least call for the supersedence
of executive prerogatives over those exercised by co-equal branches of
government. The declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus, and the exercise of the pardoning power, notwithstanding
the judicial determination of guilt of the accused, all fall within this special
class that demands the exclusive exercise by the President of the
constitutionally vested power. The list is by no means exclusive, but there
must be a showing that the executive power in question is of similar
gravitas and exceptional import.
In the case at bar, the power of the President to review the
Decision of the Secretary of Justice dealing with the preliminary
investigation of cases cannot be considered as falling within the same
exceptional class which cannot be delegated. Besides, the President has
not fully abdicated his power of control as Memorandum Circular No. 58
allows an appeal if the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua or higher.
Certainly, it would be unreasonable to impose upon the President the task
of reviewing all preliminary investigations decided by the Secretary of
Justice. To do so will unduly hamper the other important duties of the
President by having to scrutinize each and every decision of the Secretary
of Justice notwithstanding the latters expertise in said matter.

The Constitutional interpretation of the petitioner would negate

the very existence of cabinet positions and the respective
expertise which the holders thereof are accorded and would
unduly hamper the Presidents effectivity in running the
government.