Bernard Baez was OCW to Indonesia, married to Marina Cabael.

Married Djumantan in
Indonesia & had 2 children. Brought them to Phils. pretended to be friends only & passed
through immigration through such misrepresentation. Lived at Baezs house, discovered by
Cabel who filed for concubinage but was dismissed. His son Leonardo filed complaint
before the Ombudsman, detained at Commission on Immigration & Deportation
deportation proceedings ensued. The Presidents power to deport is as absolute &
unqualified as the power to prohibit entry into the country. Aliens admission is a
matter of pure permission,not as a matter of right. Likewise, an alien does not
possess right to an indefinite stay. However, the deportation of Djumantan is barred
by prescription (5 yrs +) accdg. to Immigration Act of 1940

4. Chavez v. PCGG- GR 130716, December 9, 1998

Facts: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1 WAS ISSUED BY PRESIDENT NOYNOY
AQUINO TO INVESTIGATE REPORTED CASES OF GRAFT AND
CORRUPTION OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

Issue: WON EO NO. 1 IS LEGAL

Ruling: NO. IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THE

ARROYO ADMINISTRATION IS BUT JUST A MEMBER OF A CLASS, THAT
IS, A CLASS OF PAST ADMINISTRATIONS. IT IS NOT A CLASS OF ITS
OWN. NOT TO INCLUDE PAST ADMINISTRATIONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
CONSTITUTES ARBITRARINESS WHICH THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE CANNOT SANCTION. Applying these precepts to this case,
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal
protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth
commission is to investigate and find out the truth concerning the
reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous
administration[1] [87] only. The intent to single out the previous
administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been
made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order.

5. Pontejos v. Ombudsman- G.R. Nos. 158613-14 February 22, 2006

Facts: Atos was extended immunity as a state witness by the Ombudsman Aniano
A.Desierto. Pontejos motioned for reinvestigation to be conducted by the City
Prosecutor without remanding the case to the Ombudsman. The Assistant City
Prosecutor, after conducting reinvestigation, recommended amending the Information
for estafa to include Atos as accused reasoning that the power to grant immunity
pertains solely to the courts not to the prosecution which can only recommend.

Issue: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion of the Ombudsman
Amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction when it granted immunity to Atos
tobecome a state witness.
Ruling: he power to choose who to discharge as state witness is an executive
function. It is the prosecution that could essentially determine the strength of
pursuing the case against an accused. The prosecutorial powers include the
discretion of granting immunity to an accused in exchange for testimony against
another. Essentially, it is not a judicial prerogative. The fact that an individual had not
been previously charged or included in an information does not prevent the
prosecution from utilizing said person as a witness

6. Banda v. Ermita- G.R. No. 166620 April 20, 2010

Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:

Invalid Exercise

1. Laurel v. Garcia- G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990

2. Review Center v. Ermita- G.R. No. 180046 April 2, 2009]

3. Biraogo v. Truth Commission G.R. No. 192935 dec. 7 2010
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Executive Privilege

US v. Nixon No. 73-1766 Decided July 24, 1974*

Facts: Pres. Nixon wascharged for conspiracy to defraud the United States & obstruction of
justice. Pursuant thereto, thecourt issues sub poena duces tecum for the production of taped
conversations bet. Nixon & otherexec. officials. Nixon invokes the General Executive
Privilege; protection of communications bet.high Govt officials & those who advise & assist
them in the performance of their duties. Also invokesseparation of powers. Both cannot
sustain absolute, unqualified Presidential Immunity.

Issue:

Ruling: He must allege it on the basis of military or diplomatic secrets. Generalized interest
in confidentiality will not hold against the demands of due process & fair admin. of criminal
justice.

Almonte v .Vasquez- G.R. No. 95367 May 23, 1995

Facts: Ombudsman received anonymous letter, presumed to be from employee of EIIB

alleging corruption w/in such as ghost employees, anomalous disbursement of public
funds, etc. Ombudsman investigates & issues subpoena ducs tecum to Accounting Division
& Records Section of EIIB requiring production of documents relating to Personal Service
Funds.

Issue:

Ruling: Exec. privilege will not hold unless it is alleged that the privileged info partakes of the
nature of military or diplomatic secrets or similar matters. No express statutory grant of
privilege; only purchase of info & rewards are privileged under COACircular No. 88-293.
EIIB has duty to account for use of public funds

3. Senate v. Ermita- GR 169659, April 20, 2006

4. Neri v. Senate- GR 180643, March 25, 2008
5. Akbayan v. Aquino- GR 170516, July 16, 2008

Immunity from Suit

Soliven v. Makasiar G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988

Facts: Luis Beltran & other petitioners were charged w/libel by Pres. Aquino. Beltran argues
that the presidential immunity from suit imposes a correlative disability to file suit because
she may have to be a witness for the prosecution & subjected to pain of perjury hence
circumventing the said principle.

Issue: WON petitioner are immune from suit

Ruling: It may only be invoked by the President, not by anyone else in her behalf.
Should she so desire, she may shed the immunity, but it is herprerogative to
do so. Privilege works to protect the Pres. from being hampered in the performance ofduties
& functions by lawsuits & allows the Pres. to give governance her undivided attention