CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Executive Department
Monday, 2 October 2017
3:09 PM

Just like the members of Congress, the qualifications of those aspiring to be VP and P is exclusive
in that sense that Congress cannot enact a law that changes or adds qualifications to that.

Unless a different date is presribed by law, it should be conducted 2nd Monday of may every
after 6 years (president elections).

Who is to canvass the votes for the Presidential elections and Vice Pres elections?

While it is true that the canvassing is done by comelec, in respect to president and vp, the votes
should be conducted by Congress. Provided by Sec 4 Art 7, returns for presidential elections are
certified of a board of canvassers to every city should be forwarded to Congress. Where there
emerges a winner, the winner is proclaimed by Congress. It is not done by Comelec.

MACALINTAL V. COMELEC: SC nullified sec 18 on Absentee Voters Act empowering Comelec to

make partial proclamation for president for absentee voters. Under Sec 4 Art 7, only Congress
has the power to canvass the votes, and they are the only ones to declare the winners of P and
VP elections. Congress has the power to proclaim winners. What happened when there is a tie
between two presidential votes? Or between two vice presidentials?

In case of a tie between these votes, then Congress would have to choose the President in joint
session but voting separately. For Congress to choose where there is a tie, it needs a majority
vote. Let us assume that there was a tie. Then, to break the tie the HOR had a voting and the
Senate also voted. In the HOR, majority chose Digong, in the Senate, they voted Roxas. Who
shall be proclaimed winner where the two houses are not one?

The voting done separately although there is a joint session. What is required is a majority vote
from both houses. In that situation, who will be proclaimed winner?

There shall be another round of voting, until the two houses are unanimous as to who shall
become President. Where there is a tie between to VPs, it shall be the same with the President. It
is a given that Congress has the power to canvass the votes in like manner that they have the
power to proclaim. Who shall resolve an election contest involving President or Vice-President?

Sec.4 Art 7, SC en banc shall be sole judge for election protests for P and VP, in solving this, they
shall act as the PET. It shall be governed by separate rules, not civil procedure. They shall
promulgate rules as to how to proceed. What should be applied is a special rule, not a rule on
civil procedure.

Tecson v. COMELEC/ FPJ v. Arroyo: Jurisdiction of PET will only commence once there is a winner
in the P or VP elections. Any contest involving qualifications of P and VP candidates must be
resolved by the COMELEC.

Poe v. COMELEC: SC had a change of a heart. SC ruled that only the PET which SC is in banc,
shall have the power to become the sole judge of all election contests concerning the P and VP
and the qualifications. Only PET has the power to resolve any contest concerning P and VP
election protests.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

The provision is worded in a manner that the PET only has the power to decide cases of P and VP
election protests after there is a winner.

After the P and VP elections, they are proclaimed already. What is the term of office of the
elected President? What about the VP?

Six years. Sec 4 Art 7. It commences at noon of June 30 following the election and valid until the
noon of the same date six years after. Paramount importance is that the President shall not be
eligible for any re-election. No person who shall have succeeded as President and served for
four years shall not be eligible for re-election. Voluntary renunciation is not considered as an
interruption of service. This applies not only to VP but also the P. It equally applies.

Question is: No president eligible for re-election, how is it that Erap was able to run again?

Estrada v. Arroyo: Erap resigned from office, but the provision of voluntary renunciation is there.
How come he was allowed to run? That is the concern of COMELEC. It was questioned. It was an
argument that he was prohibited from seeking re-election. Comelec ruled in favor of Erap
because the re-election there means the immediately succeeding election as was ruled in
Socrates v. COMELEC.

This is wrong. If you closely examine sec 4 Art 7, it is stated that the President is not eligible for any
re-election. The President is not eligible for any re-election to the point that the person who has
succeeded and served for four years shall not be eligible for qualification for re-election. They
are forever prohibited from running again for the same post. In that case, Comelec ruled in favor
of Erap.

Formento v. Hera: The same ruling was elevated to SC. After Presidential elections, when Noynoy
won, it became moot and academic and SC threw the case out. However, it should have been
ruled because judicial review could have been there for cases that evade review but are
capable of repetition. Erap should have been disqualified.

What about VP? It is also six years, but the VP is allowed to seek re-election. No VP shall serve
office for more than two consecutive terms. Suppose that VP is now (Leni) runs again in the next
national elections and seek re-election. Assume she is re-elected. The next VP election will be on
2022. Assume that Leni is re-elected in 2022 and then end at 2028. If she chose not to run in 2028
and then run in 2032. She seeks re-election for and as VP. Would she be qualified to run?

Two views:

A. Leni not allowed to run.

B. She should be allowed to run because what is contemplated is that there are only two
consecutive terms.

PERSONAL OPINION: Leni can run in 2032 elections because what is contemplated is two
consecutive terms. NO CASE AS OF YET.

While it says term of President is only six years, the provision is Art. 5. President and VP in February
1986 for purposes of synchronization, their term will be extended until June 30, 1992. That is why
Aquino served for longer. Presidents after Aquino served only for six years, except Erap because
he supposedly resigned from office.

Why was Gloria able to serve a second time?

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Those who succeeded as President or VP shall not be qualified to run for the same position if
he/she has run for four years or more. She only served for less than four years. That’s why she was
allowed to run for re-election.

As far as winners are proclaimed, before they were allowed to perform their functions, they were
to take their oath of office. Before then, he cannot discharge his functions as the case may be.
Sec. 5 Art. 7 Requirement.

Assume that President and VP were already elected by the people and Congress canvassed
the votes for the P and VP, and they have commenced their functions. But there are vacancies
in the office of the P or VP. What happens even if during the term of their office, there is a
vacancy in P and VP office? How should it be solved?

Presidential succession. Art 7 Sec 7, Sec. 8, Sec. 9, and Sec. 10. Provision under Sec 7, it deals with
succession at the commencement of office. Where presidential succession referred to in Sec. 8 is
vacancy that occurs during the term of office during the President.

IF we have to factor in provisions of 7, 8, 9, it would appear that where there is a temporary

vacancy….

I. Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the President, then the VP will be the acting
President. Where there is temporary vacancy at the start or during his term of the President,
VP will be the acting President. ONLY ACTING PRESIDENT, NOT THE PERMANENT PRESIDENT.
After all, it is only temporary.

EXAMPLE: Congress proclaimed winner in the VP election, and he had taken his oath. In so far as
the President is concerned, there is a tie. Congress is unable to decide who the President is. It is
already the noon of June 30 following the elections. Now, VP will be the acting President such
that if subsequently, Congress chooses who is the President, then VP will go back to his previous
position. It results from the fact that no President was chosen yet.

EXAMPLE: President proclaimed winner, but then President fails to take oath of office. Noon of
June 30 following election. Where that happens, then the VP will act as the acting President. This
happens if the vacancy is ONLY TEMPORARY.

EXAMPLE: President states he is incapable of acting as President at the moment. Sec 11

EXAMPLE: Speaker of House states that President is unable to do his functions. VP becomes
acting President. If it is disputed by President, President will assume his functions. If within 5 days,
the same number of Cabinet members transmit to the Senate a written declaration of
President's incapacity, then this issue of incapacity shall be decided by Congress. If not in
session, convene within 48 hours following receipt. (?????). If a vote of 2/3 shows that President is
incapacitated, then VP will become the acting President. Even if it is determined that the
President is incapacitated, the VP will only become acting President under Sec 11.
Contemplated under this section is only temporary incapacity.

What about if it is temporary vacancy occurs not only in President office but also VP office?
TEMPORARY VACANCY IN BOTH OFFICES. Who acts as President?

• Senate President.
• If incapacitated, Speaker of the House.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

• If both are incapacitated, then Congress has to enact a law to answer that situation. But
Congress has not yet enacted a law because the two have not yet been incapacitated in
history. We can't say that there should be a special election. ENACT A LAW TO ANSWER
QUESTION.

Still, none of them become permanent presidents. It is only temporary in character.

Assume situation that there is a vacancy in P and VP, and it is temporary in nature. Senate Pres.
Shall act as President. Where that happens that the Senate President is the President. Should the
Speaker of the House also be acting VP?

No. If you will examine Consti, there is nothing there for an acting VP. Nomination only happens
in PERMANENT vacancy. It does not necessarily follow that the VP's office is succeeded by
Speaker of the House.

II. Vacancy occurring is no longer temporary but permanent.

President dies or is permanently incapacitated. When President is impeached, resigns, or steps

down from office. Where vacancy is permanent, VP will assume will not just be acting President,
but will become the President of the Republic. It is only when the vacancy is permanent in
character. If in that situation, VP becomes President permanently by virtue of presidential
succession, where that happens, there will be a vacancy in the office of the VP. This vacancy is
also permanent. Because the VP becomes the President of the Republic.

How should the vacancy be filled? The President now will nominate a member of the Congress
to become the VP. Person nominated will become VP if his nomination is confirmed by a vote of
majority of the members of the Senate and HOR voting separately. In other words, VP who now
becomes President, shall choose his successor to become VP. The person chosen must be a
member of Congress. What is important is that it is confirmed by the majority of each house,
voting separately. It is what happened to Guingona.

Guingona was nominated by Arroyo to become her VP. He became VP because he garnered
the majority vote of both houses voting separately.

III. Permanent Vacancy in President and VP.

Senate President will assume becoming acting President. In his incapacity, Speaker of the House
becomes acting President. Then, third day 10 o' clock, following permanent vacancies,
Congress shall convene without deed of call, and in seven days, they shall call a special
election to fill the vacancies of the office of P and VP. Not later than 60 days following such call,
and not earlier than 30 days. Any special election is deemed certified such that it may be acted
upon in just one day. Under Sec. 10, that law calling for special election will become a law once
it is approved on the third and final reading. This is even without the signature of the President.
We cannot countenance a situation where the Senate President is just the acting President.

Where it is within 18 months before next elections for P and VP, there is no need to call for special
elections. Wait for the next presidential elections. Senate President or speaker of House will not
become permanent president unless they participate as candidates in the next elections.

SAME POWERS? Powers limited by Sec 14 by the Acting President.

PRIVILEGES TO PRESIDENT AND VP

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Salaries are fixed by law, such that it cannot be decreased during their term of office. May
salary be increased? Sec 6 Art 7 prohibits the diminution of their salaries. Yes, the increase is
allowed, but only after the expiration of the term of incumbents when it is approved. It shall not
be increased during their term. It only takes effect after the expiration of the terms of President or
VP.

Prohibition under Sec 6, P and VP shall not receive other salaries from government. If VP
becomes part of the Cabinet of P, then he/she cannot be given a salary for the cabinet.

President and VP has immunity from suit. Not expressly stated or provided by Constitution. It
becomes a matter of public policy.

Wolves v. Chokotoko (?) talks of that.

While President is immune from suit, he is not immune from impeachment. Both of them can be
removed from office. May Ombudsman conduct a case against President? (?)

Yes, any result will not stand in court but will become basis for impeachment.

Are there restrictions imposed?

They have privileges. Salaries, perks to travel and spend money. There are restrictions or
prohibitions on the President.

1. Sec 13 Par 1 Art 7 - President, VP, heads of the various executive depts, secretaries and
undersecs, shall not during or unless otherwise provided by Consti, shall not hold any other
office or employment.

Prohibition not just to holding another position, but also holding a position in the private sector.
This prohibition prohibits both posts in government and private sector. It is on this that there is a
difference in prohibition of Congress and the President/VP.

2. Sec. 13 (P, VP, Sec, Undersec, Members of Cabinet) Prohibited from having any direct or
indirectly practicing their profession or having a direct/indirect financial interest.

Difference again between Congress and the P/VP. As for members of Congress, they are not
prohibited from having financial interests. They are only to disclose their assets and etc. They are
not mandated to divest themselves of financial interest.

Provision was overstretched when Arroyo's medical records was disclosed to the public without
her permission. It is not the condition contemplated in the provision. It was only serious illness in
regards to the President.

POWERS OF PRESIDENT AND VP

1. Appointing powers.

• Appointment v. designation. Appointment is selection of authority to individual who is to

perform a function of office. It is the mode of entrance to government service. Designation
is just a way of giving additional functions to a person who is already in public office. In
that context, we can differentiate both.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

• Kinds of appointment: permanent and temporary appointment.

• Permanent is given to someone who has all qualifications and none of the
disqualifications. They enjoy security of tenure.
• Temporary is given to someone who doesn't possess all the necessary qualifications to
hold public office. It is accepted by the one appointed under the provision or with
understanding that when the appointment is gone, they must relinquish this position. There
is no security of tenure.

APPOINTMENT BY PRESIDENT: Regular appointment v. ad interim appointment.

• Regular appointment: conferred by President while Congress is in session (Art. 6 Sec 16.).
Where regular procedures for appointments is strictly followed. He nominates person. If that
office would lead to termination, then CoA will extend confirmation if required. When that
is obtained, President gives papers to appointee. Before acceptance, President can
withdraw it. Appointee must accept because they cannot be forced to accept.

• Ad interim appointment: conferred by President while Congress is in recess. (CoA is also

in recess). We cannot have confirmation by CoA when President extends his nomination.
Q: Is that appointment valid when President merely appoints a person without securing the
confirmation from the CoA? It should be had before extending a written confirmation.
• Ad interim appointment while CoA is not in session is valid but valid only until disapproved
by CoA or until its next adjournment. In that situation, if the appointment is not acted upon,
it is deemed bypassed. Ad interim appointment valid up until disapproved by CoA or next
adjournment of Congress where it was bypassed.

Appointments that need confirmation from CoA. What about if President extends appointment
to something that needs confirmation, but Congress disapproves nomination made by
President. (Gina Lopez - To be DENR secretary). May President Digong re-appoint Gina Lopez to
the same position when previous nomination was disapproved?

No. there is already a decision from the CoA. But could she be appointed to another post?

Yes. The disapproval was only in respect to being DENR secretary.

Rule if appointment of Lopez was not disapproved. IT was simply bypassed. Meaning Gina Lopez
was appointed while Congress was in recess, and when CoA reconvened, they did not approve
or disapprove such nomination as DENR Secretary. Simply bypassed. Where that happens, may
she be re-appointed to the same post?

Yes. (Matibag v. Benepayo 149036 April 2, 2002). There is no decision to disapprove the
nomination of Gina Lopez as DENR Secretary.

LIMITATIONS ON APPOINTING POWERS:

1. Sec 16 (1) Art 7 - there are nominations which would need CoA's confirmation. Appoint
heads of exec departments (DOJ Secretaries etc.), ambassadors, public ministers or
consuls, officers of AFP from rank of naval captain or colonel, and others that are vested in
him in 1987 Constitution. First sentence would need the confirmation of the CoA.
Appointments made by President in the second sentence, it does not need CoA
confirmation. President shall also appoint all other officers of the government whose
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

appointment is not provided by law. Basta second sentence lage, walay kailangan nga
confirmation.

Quintos Deles v. CoA 177 SCRA 281 - Made sectoral representative. President was to appoint
sectoral representatives for part representatives. Unless there is a law to the contrary, President
can appoint sectoral representatives. His nomination was questioned because it needed
confirmation. Quintos stated that there is no such thing for sectoral representative. Sec 5 is silent.
SC said that such nomination needs confirmation because it falls within the purview of the first
sentence.

ART IX - Such appointments or nominations shall be made with the COA. Where President
appoints members of judiciary or bar council should be confirmed by CoA. Sec 8 Art 8, it should
be with consent of CoA.

There are appointments that have to be made by the President that falls under 1987 Constitution
to the 1st sentence, but it doesn't need confirmation by way of exception.

1. Appointment of VP as Cabinet Member Sec 3 Par 2 Art 7. Reason is that it provides such
would not need confirmation of CoA. Appointment is done by Constitution but by way of
exception.

2. Appointment of the Justices of SC and justices of the Lower Courts Sec 9 Art 8. Such does
not need confirmation of CoA.

3. Appointment of Ombudsman and his deputies. Still exempt by Constitution.

Generally, appointment of public officers would generally need confirmation of CoA under 1st
sentence of Sec 16 except the above.

2nd Paragraph:

1. Appointments of other govt officials that are not provided by law or those authorized by
law to be appointed by President. Commission of Human Rights -> Silent on who is to
appoint chairman of this body. If the President would appoint the chairman, then any of
the positions provided in 2nd paragraph does not need confirmation.

Bautista case: Basically #1. It does not need confirmation. However, sectoral representatives, it
would need confirmation.

If he makes appointments and law vests him with authority to appoint that person, then it will not
need confirmation. If there is a law creating a public office and the law gives the power to
appoint to the President, then it does not need the confirmation of CoA.

Calderon v. Carale: Calderon questioned appointment of NLRC Commissioners. Labor Code

states that chairmen of NLRC and other labor commissioners would need appointment by
President and confirmed by CoA. President appointed chairman of NLRC and NLRC
Commissioners without confirmation. The law was clear because it needed confirmation. SC
disagreed. While truly as pointed out, there is a law providing that appointment needed
confirmation, that appointment fell under ambit of 2nd sentence. Because it fell under this
section, it does not need confirmation of CoA. A law cannot amend the provisions of the
Constitution.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Can President make appointments in an acting capacity? President made appointment as a

temporary or acting capacity? Would it be allowed? Or is it circumventing the requirements?

Yes, if that is done and compelled by exigency by something.

Pimentel Case G.R. # 164978 Oct 13, 2005 - Temporary appointments are valid if done in good
faith and impelled by exigency of public service.

LIMITATION: Sec 13 Par 2 Art 7 - Prohibits nepotism. Spouse, relatives within 4th degree of co-
sanguinity or affinity shall not be appointed to Ombudsman, sec or undersec, chairmen of
various offices and depts. and govt. controlled corporations and its subsidiaries.

LIMITATION: Sec 14 Art 7 - Appointments made by Acting President shall be valid unless revoked
following 90 days of assumption to office. It is subject to revocation.

LIMITATION: Sec 15 Art 7 - Prohibits midnight appointments. It is provided that 2 months prior to
next immediately preceding Pres elections, the Pres cannot make appointments, only temporary
appointments to executive positions and only if vacancy endangers public safety or prejudice
public service.

What about Corona's appointment? It was appointed two months prior to expiration of President
Arroyo. Sec 15 Art 7 it would readily appear that the appointment would not be considered as
valid.

De Castro v. JBC March 17, 2010 - SC declared valid the appointment of Corona by Arroyo.
Vacancy in the SC shall be Sec 4 Art 8, Provisions of Art 8 shall be read as exceptions to the ones
under Art 7. Ruling in this case was completely at odds with earlier pronouncements of In the
Matter of Mateo Valenzuela Nov 9, 1998 - Appointments in judiciary should conform to
prohibition imposed under Sec 15 Art 7. (Atty. G does not agree).

General vs. Special provision - special provision should be maintained. Sec 4 and 9 are only
general provisions in filling up the vacancies of the judiciary.

Does it apply to governors, mayors on prohibition on midnight appointments?

• No, because this prohibition is only imposed on President.

De Rama v. Court of Appeals G.R. 131136 Feb 21 - midnight appointment does not apply to
lower executive officers like mayors and provincial governors. It only applies to the President.

Continuation of Executive Department

Wednesday, 4 October 2017
3:02 PM
Section 17 Art VII, vests President with power of control over various executive depts, bureau.

Control v. Supervision

Which is pervasive? The power of control. Supervision merely means to oversee the functions
of the subordinates. It does not lay down the procedure of which they are to function.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Power of supervision is necessarily included in the power of control, not otherwise.

Supervision subordinate in control. What is vested in the President under executive is the
power of control. This includes the power of the President to direct a thing to be done by
subordinates; direct that a thing or act be undone. It involves power of president to modify
decisions or substitute his own judgment for that of the subordinate.

Araneta v. Gagmaitan: SC said power of control vested in President in the various executive
departments include performing what the subordinate can do. Congress enacted a law
vesting authority on Secretary of Bureau of Aquatic Resources to regulate fishing.
Magsaysay took it upon himself to regulate this. What was contended is that the secretary is
the only one who was authorized. SC disagreed, stating that if the subordinate is
empowered, it is with more reason that the President can also perform duty or power
bestowed to the subordinate. Not the other way around, however.

What President has over the executive depts and etc means he can reshuffle his
subordinates and members of the Cabinet. He can reorganize a particular organization and
etc. within the executive.

Malaria G.R. 160093 - Power of control involves reorganization under the executive
department. Considering under Sec 17, Art 7, President is given power of control, then we
have what is known as the alter-ego principle: subordinate officers/members of the
executive departments are considered alter-egos or projections of the President.

Executive secretaries as well as the heads and chairmen of the various bureaus are
considered projections or alter-egos of the President. IT is otherwise known as doctrine of
qualified political agency: all departments and etc. under the office of President are
considered extensions of the office of President, and the heads and etc. are agents of the
President. Conversely, their acts are valid because they are acts of the President. It is valid
until disapproved by the President.

DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees 149724 August 16, 2003 - Reorganization of the DENR,
directed by Secretary of DENR that Cotabato City was transferred. Act of Secretary was
questioned. Does not have the authority of transferring Cotabato City region. Act of DENR
Secretary is to be valid up until disapproved by the President.

Lacson Magallanes v. Pano: There was under the rules of LRA, Land Director rules were final
and executory if affirmed by DENR Secretary. Director of Lands appealed, and executive
secretary overturned ruling of DENR Secretary. Act of Executive Secretary was questioned.
SC disagreed, decision of DENR Secretary may be modified, altered or reversed by Office of
the President because what the President has is the power of control, which includes
substituting his judgment to his subordinate's.

What he has over the LGUs is the power of supervision, not control. LGUs are given local
autonomy.

Daduli v. Commission on Audit: Daduli judge of RTC Mandaue. City of Mandaue granted
allowances to judges in Mandaue city, and Dept. of Budget and Management reduced the
allowances granted by City. Questioned by Judge Daduli. SC said DBM cannot reduce
what was granted by the city because what the President has over LGUs is only the power
of supervision. The office of the President cannot substitute his judgment for that of the
subordinate here.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Pimentel v. Aguirre GR 132988 July 19, 2000 - President withheld 5% ERA owing to various
LGUs. Provided under the LGC that LGUs would get ERA from national government. He
withheld the ERA owing to various LGUs. SC nullified action, stating that he cannot validly do
that. What he has over LGUs is the power of supervision. That merely denotes that one
oversees the performance of the functions of another person; not substitute his judgment for
the subordinate.

Second Sentence: Commonly referred as the take-care clause. President makes sure that all
laws are faithfully executed. It does not only refer to laws enacted by Congress. It includes
Constitution, local ordinances, decisions of SC, treaties entered, and even administrative
rules and regulations. It includes himself. It is in this light that the case of:

Lagman v. Ochoa: President Noynoy has the power to make Truth Commission
spearheaded by CJ Davide. It was questioned (NoyNoy Authority) because it was argued
that the power to make a public office which would entail public funds is a power
belonging to Congress. The President cannot create a public office. It was considered that
the President in re-organizing may abolish an office, yet the President does not have a
power to create a public office. But in this case, SC said that the President can create an
office belonging to exec dept. as to the take-care clause under 2nd sentence of Section 17
Art 7. Especially if it is to take observance over execution of laws. Creation of that office is
violative of equal protection clause. The past administration of Gloria was singled out as if it
were the only administration that was corrupt because the previous administrations were
also corrupt. Administration of Gloria should not be singled it. Power to create was sustained,
but office was not because it was violative of the equal protection clause.

ANOTHER POWER VESTED ON THE PRESIDENT: Military power found under Section 18 Art 7.

Military power conferred under Section 18 are graduated. It starts with the benign power to
the more serious one. It starts with the designation of President as commander-in-chief of
AFP. It is a benign power, but even if President has not military background or training, he is
still the commander. Echo of state policy or furtherance of that principle.

Jalandoni v. Corona: Can make a military tribunal.

Because CiC, President can enter into negotiations for peace.

Downside to being CiC: Rodriguez v. Gloria Arroyo: SC said that in the context of issuing the
writs of amparo or extrajudicial killings and command responsibility, the President may be
held answerable for acts performed by military officers. Question on whether or not Digong
can be sued for EJK - Yes following this rule. This is only for EJK, Writ of Amparo, and
Command Responsibility principle.

ANOTHER POWER UNDER SEC 18 - Calling out power. If this is required under exigency of
situation and only to supress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.

More pervasive and serious power SEC 18 - Suspend of privilege of writ of habeas corpus
and declare ML for a part or whole of Philippines.

Power granted is the power to suspend is the privilege of the writ, but not the writ of habeas
corpus. Where there are forced disappearances or arrests, the relatives can still file a
petition for habeas corpus. Where that happens, the court can still issue the writ
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

commanding military officers detaining them to bring to court the bodies. Where there is a
suspension of the privilege as ordered by president, the writ may just be given back to the
judge answered. The writ may no longer be enforced. But it does not affect validity of
issuance of writ or petition.

Martial Law: Are there new powers vested in the President if there is Martial Law? 1987
Constitution says no. ML is nothing but a declaration that the President has called out
military to deal with particular situation. He is not given emergency powers in declaration of
ML.

If we will closely examine provisions, there are a lot of restrictions imposed on President even
when he declares ML. Underscore fact that declaration may not entirely affect the
Philippines. May only be good for a particular place. Much like the case now with
Mindanao.

Restrictions/Limitations:

1. If there is invasion/rebellion, and public safety requires the same.

2. Good only for 60 days originally, unless revoked or extended by Congress. It may
not exceed a period of 60 days as a matter of general rule.

3. Within 48 hours from such declaration of ML, President has to make a report
personally or in writing. This has to be done within 48 hours. He has to give a basis for
suspension.

4. Congress has the power to revoke such declaration of ML and/or suspend the
privilege of habeas corpus. Such revocation cannot be set aside by the President. He
cannot veto the decision of Congress revoking the revocation. (VOTES REQUIRED: Joint
session and majority should be computed on entire membership of Congress.
Members of HOR and Senators = 1/2 + 1 = 1 simple majority. Counting done jointly). ->
Reason is to prevent a situation of deadlock. If we require separate voting, there may
be a deadlock.

Under Constitution, it is good only for 60 days and revoked by Congress, but upon initiative
of President, Congress can extend. The Constitution does not provide for the maximum
period for such extension to be allowed. Indefinite depending on discretion of Congress.

Safeguard: Congress if not in session, shall convene within 24 hours without need of call and
according to rules. Issue whether or not for Congress to convene when there is declaration
of ML. Allies of Duterte said that it is only necessary if Congress decides to revoke. Others
contend that it is mandated. Pimentel was of that view. Petition involving that issue was
dismissed for being moot and academic given Congress's decision to extend ML.

Atty Galeon's Take -> Convening is required when declaration of ML is there. Under Sec 18,
there is a particular paragraph devoted for this, used auxiliary shall. Argued that their basis is
that Congress if not in session shall convene within 24 hours and in accordance to its rules.
But what is meant by rules means the manner of convening, not whether or not to convene.
Decision of body will be known to members of Congress.

Safeguard: Under 1987 Constitution, SC is expressly given authority to review the factual basis
for ML if there is a petition filed by any citizen and that decision must be rendered in a
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

period of 30 days. It is now clear that the court can review the sufficiency or insufficiency of
the factual basis.

In Montenegro case pre-1987, it doesn't have power to review ML factual basis. Garcia
Padilla v. Enrile: reverted to its ruling previously. ERASE ALL DOUBT OF COMPETENCE: 1987
Const. provides the power to review this. LEGAL STANDING RULE IS RELAXED IN THIS CASE.
SHORT PERIOD OF WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE.

Lagman v. Medialdea: SC has authority to decide any petition deciding sufficiency of

petition.

Limitation: Provisions that during ML will not suspend operation of Constitution or supplant
functioning of civil courts or legislative assemblies or confer jurisdiction to military tribunals
over civilian citizens. Declaration of ML does not carry with it the suspension of the privilege
writ of habeas corpus.

Persons must be charged within 3 days following arrest, or else they are released. Bail is
available even if there is a suspension of the writ. May there be warantless arrests or
searches when there is declaration of suspension of privilege?

It depends. Where there is suspension on the privilege of the writ, or even when there is no
declaration, persons who are guilty of perpetrating rebellion may be arrested without a
warrant because rebellion is considered a continuing crime. Sec 5 Rule 113 RRC, a person
who is about to commit an offense etc. may be arrested without a warrant. For ordinary
crimes, you need a warrant for that unless if it is in flagrante delicto.

Power: Pardoning Power Sec 19 Art VII

Otherwise provided by law, President may grant powers under Sec 19. 2nd sentence - grant
amnesty with concurrence of all members of Congress. PARDONING POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT.

1. Reprieve - Executive clemency that is like postponing or prolonging what is

inevitable. In the event that death penalty is imposed, president can grant reprieve to
prolonging the inevitable. POSTPONEMENT OF THE EXECUTION OF SENTENCE.
2. Commutation - Reduces sentence.
3. Pardon - It's only conferred after conviction. PAROLE v. PARDON = Parole
presupposes the serving of the minimum of the penalty. It is not granted by President,
but the Bureau of Parole and Pardons (?). It does not relieve person of criminal liability.
He is still under the custody of the law, unlike pardon. PROBATION v. PARDON =
Probation is granted by court, whereas pardon is granted by President. Probation
presupposes that it is imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.

PARDON: Conditional, plenary, absolute, and partial.

• Plenary: All encompassing. It wipes out both principal and accessory penalties.
• Partial: It merely wipes out principal penalty but not the accessory penalties.
• Absolute: Granted without any string attached. It is normally a plenary kind of
pardon.
• Conditional: It has some conditions attached with it. Considering that there are
conditions attached, then the acceptance of the person with the conditions is
necessary.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

If absolute, then the person cannot refuse. If what is granted is conditional, then
acceptance is necessary. He has the right to accept or not to accept. If what is granted is
conditional, the performance of it should be in accordance to its penalties (if 10 years, then
cannot exceed 10 years). If you violate conditions, then you may compelled to serve out
sentence and prosecuted criminally for violation of Art 159 of RPC on violation on the
conditions of your pardon. You cannot commit any infraction of the law.

Sumulong v. Gonzales: Mere filing of case against pardoned is sufficient for President to
revoke pardon. No need for conviction.

Why was Erap able to run when there was a conditional pardon? When a condition is he will
not seek any public office.

In the wherefore clauses, it was not put by Gloria. It was suspected to be by design. Only in
the whereas clauses was it placed. It was not placed in the dispositive clauses.

Among executive clemencies, there is a grant of remission of fines or forfeitures: Fines

imposed on person convicted, but money will not go to private complainant but to the
government. IT can be condoned by President. Degree of forfeiture may be erased by
President if he grants it in favor of person convicted.

Amnesty to persons convicted of political crimes: Amnesty v. Pardon

Amnesty requires concurrence of majority of all of Congress. Pardon does not need this.
Pardon after conviction, amnesty even without waiting for it, but there should be
admittance of guilt. Pardon is for all offenses, amnesty is for political crimes. Amnesty
granted to group of persons, pardon for individual persons. Amnesty does not need
acceptance. Pardon is a private action by the President. Pardon looks forward, does not
wipe out civil liability. Amnesty looks backward, as if person has not committed any crime at
all.

Sec 19: Given pardoning powers. No limitations?

• Cannot be provided in cases for persons who were impeached. Impeachment

process for Erap was not complete. That is why he was granted a pardon.
• Pardoning powers may only be exercises by him when there is final judgment or
conviction unless if it is amnesty.
• What is granted is amnesty, there needs a concurrence of the majority of
Congress.
• Where a person is convicted of election offenses, he needs the consent of
COMELEC to pardon.
• Cannot be exercised to persons who are cited in contempt by Congress.
• Cannot wipe out civil indemnity in favor of private complainants.

If one is convicted for violation offense and granted absolute pardon, and he used to
occupy public office. Would the grant reinstate him as a public officer?

It depends. If absolute pardon is granted and it is rooted on innocence of person, then he

should be reinstated to public service. But if it is not anchored on pure innocence, then the
person cannot demand reinstatement to public post that he previously held.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Monsanto v. Factoran: Estafa through falsification of public documents. Girl demanded to

be reinstated to public post. SC said that pardon does not completely obliterate crime
committed such that you won't be automatically be reinstated. But you can apply again for
that position. Discretionary.

WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION: PELOBILLO V. PANTINO: Granted pardon, ran for public office.
Disqualification sought for. SC said that granted absolute pardon, then it restored political
rights. Factoran was different because she wanted to be AUTOMATICALLY reinstated.

Section 20 deals with borrowing powers of President. He can contract loans on behalf of
Republic.

Limitation: Only can do that if there is prior concurrence with the monetary board (part of
Bangko Sentral). Added requirement: At the end of every quarter of the year, they must
submit to Congress the decisions on the loans for the Republic, especially ones that increase
public deficits.

Can enter into treaties and intl. agreements. Caveat - only valid if there is concurrence of at
least 2/3 of the members of Senate. It shall not be binding.

Pimentel vs. Executive Secretary 159088 - SC said power to enter into treaty is lodged in
President. What is given to Congress is only power of concurrence. There was a treaty of
Rome Statute. Ratified by President himself. Office did not give it to Senate for concurrence.
Made writ of mandamus to transmit treaty that was already signed to Senate for
concurrence. The Rome Statute was already ratified, but it wasn't transmitted to Senate.
Pimentel being Senate President filed a case to compel transmission. Could the President be
compelled to transmit?

SC said it is the discretion of President. Even if President signed the treaty, you cannot
compel transmission, but the treaty will not be binding and effective.

What about executive agreements? It does not mention executive agreements which are
likewise binding.

Is concurrence needed? No. It is only good for treaties and intl. agreements.

Section 22: Budgetary powers of President.

• President is given power to make budget for expenditures, send to Congress

within 30 days prior to opening on next regular session. Basis for General appropriation
law which will become an act. This power is vested on Pres. Take note that as a matter
of procedure, it has to be transmitted to HOR (Sec 24 Art 6 - appropriation bill must
originate from HOR. Sec 25 Art VI - Congress may not increase appropriation as thus
recommended by President).

Information Power (Sec 23) - President shall address Congress at opening of session. SONA.
While it appears that this is mandatory, this is actually discretionary on the part of the
President to address the SONA at the opening of the regular session.

Marcos v. Manlapus: SC said executive powers is not only the sum of all the powers under
Constitution. He also has residual power for as long as the function he performs is executive
in character. Powers of President are not only those expressly mentioned by Constitution. He
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

can perform residual powers as long as he performs function that is executive in character.
Questioned President Aquino in returning the dead body of Marcos. Accdng. To petitioners,
there was no law prohibiting the dead body of Marcos. SC said that power is executive in
character such that the president may exercise residual power that Aquino had the power
to demand the dead body of President Marcos.

OTHER REPOSITORIES OF PRESIDENT POWER NOT FOUND IN ART 7:

Sec 26 Art 6 - Can call for urgency of bill.

Has power to disapprove law.

Sec 23 Par 2 Art 6 - giving power to President to be delegated emergency powers.

Sec 28 Art 6 - giving powers to President to regulate tariff rates.

Art 9 -C Section 2 Par 2 - President can deputize officers during election day to assist
comelec.

Sec 2 Par 8 - disciplinary powers over those who are deputized to serve during election day.

Judicial Department
Friday, 6 October 2017
3:15 PM
Section 1 Provides that judicial power is vested in SC and other courts created by law. Preceding
from the provision, it is clear that the only court created pursuant to the Constitution is the
Supreme court. The others are just statutory courts created by Congress. All other courts are
created by law. One court created by Constitution, the Supreme Court. You have to realize that
under our Constitution Sec 1 Art 8, judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
suggesting there is only one.

Vargas v. Villioraza - After the war, there was an act mandating that whenever the SC would
hear the collaborators, the Filipinos who sided with the Japanese, they would have to inhibit
themselves and be replaced temporarily by judges of the CA or RTC. Provision of the law. Those
during the occupation period would be replaced by the other members. (IN TEXTBOOK). This
was void because the old Constitutions, like the 1987 Constitution, ordained that there should be
only 1 SC.

Judicial power defined under second paragraph. Judicial power involves power to review
(check the Constitution). Duty of the courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction - Expanded concept of judicial review. It
is nothing but an integral component or part of judicial power.

There is only one SC created by Constitution = SC. Under provisions of Art. 8, you have to realize
that only the jurisdiction of the SC and powers are only therein. Nowhere can you find here any
provision defining the powers and jurisdiction of the lower courts. Who will define the powers and
jurisdiction of the lower courts?
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Under Sec 2 Art 8, providing that Congress has the power to define, prescribe, and apportion
the duty of lower courts. There is a limitation that under this, it is provided that Congress cannot
deprive SC of its power and jurisdiction enumerated under Section 5 Art 8.

Limitation of Congress - No power to deprive SC of its power and authority over cases under
Section 5 Art 8.

It's also in Sec. 30 Art 6 (Just check it). This limitation provides that no law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of _.

When it refers to courts, it refers to even the lower courts like the Municipal Trial Courts. Who
appoints judges of lower courts and the justices of the Supreme Court.

Sec 9 Art 8 - Justices of SC and judges of lower courts are appointed by the President of the
Republic. 3 nominees provided by Judicial and Bar Council. Further provided that President shall
make appointments 90 days from the list, and it doesn't need confirmation from CoA. This is to
ensure the independence of the judiciary. What are the qualifications for those who will be
appointed as justices of the SC?

1. At least 40 years old.

2. Must be of proven confidence, integrity, and etc.
3. One has to be a natural born Filipino. (Justices of SC and Collegiate Courts like
Sandiganbayan and Court of Appeals).
4. 15 years or more as a judge or engaged in a practice of law. (Justices of SC and
collegiate courts)
• Liberal interpretation. Monsod case - the only exception to the ruling of the majority of
the SC is that it involves anything legal. Marital obligations require law on persons. Justice
Cruz said that there is only a tiny exception of a lawyer teaching pre-pubescent ladies (?).

As for judges of lower courts,

1. It is enough that one is a Filipino citizen.
2. A member of the IBP.

MTC - Must be engaged in the practice of law for 5 years

RTC/Shari'a Courts/Tax Appeals Court - engaged at least 10 years.

Magistrates of SC do not need confirmation of CoA. It is based on a list of 3 nominees as

prepared by the JBC.

Aguinaldo v. Aquino 224302, Nov 11, 2016 - Involved appointment of justices of Sandiganbayan.
As provided by law, JBC made a list of at least 3 nominees for every vacant position. In
Sandiganbayan, there were three posts that were vacant. One vacancy in each division. JBC
submitted at least 3 nominees to president for every vacancy.

Sandiganbayan Division #1 - (1), Gave 4 nominees for each vacancy.

Sandiganbayan Division #2 - (1), Gave 4 nominees for each vacancy.

Sandiganbayan Division #3 - (1), Gave 4 nominees for each vacancy.

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

The problem was that all three appointees came from the same group. Meaning that in one
division's nominees, all the selected ones came from that grouping. Aguinaldo complained that
the appointment wasn't valid. Under Constitution, JBC prepares at least 3 nominees for every
vacant position. Problem lies with the list. SC said there is nothing wrong with this kind of
appointment. It is enough that the person nominated came from JBC. Submission of list of at
least 3 nominees was complied with by the JBC. New case dealing with this particular situation.
MAYBE WILL COME OUT IN THE YEAR 2020 IN THE BAR EXAMS.

MUST BE DONE BY JBC. It is created by the 1987 Constitution. Primary task is to screen applicants
of positions in the judiciary. Judicial and bar council has two components. Three members
thereof who occupy, ex-officio capacity, and those who belong to the regular members of the
JBC. 3 Ex-officio of JBC (Chief Justice of the SC, Representative of Congress, DOJ Secretary).

Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council - Observed by Chavez that there are two members coming
from Congress of Philippines sitting as ex-officio members (Tupas and Escudero). There should
only be one because there was one representative. The other side argued that there should be
one from HOR and one from Senate because the Congress is made of a bicameral committee.
SC said that there should only be one representative from Congress because it said there should
only be one representative from Congress in its SINGULAR sense. SC sided with Chavez. ONLY 3
MEMBERS OF JBC AS EX-OFFICIO.

Regular members - 1 member from IBP, professor of law, retired justice of SC, and representative
of private sector. Appointed by President WITH the consent of the CoA. Representative of IBP
serves office for 4 years, professor - 3, justice - 2, and representative - 1. These are the terms of
office. As soon as there shall be replacements, then the person appointed shall be doing it for
four years. Staggering terms. JBC is not completely devoid of any political influence.

2 of them may be an ally of the President - 1 DOJ Secretary and Congress Representative.
Regular members too.

Can the terms of regular terms be shortened? The President cannot. No limit as to how many
times they can be re-appointed. If term of IBP member expires, he can be re-appointed for 4
years again.

The President is given the power to appoint justices of SC, CA, and lower court judges. While
they are all appointed by the President, he cannot designate them to occupy positions
performing functions as quasi-judicial functions or administrative functions. He cannot appoint
any member of the judiciary to this.

Macalintal v. PET - Under Sec. 12 of Art 8, expressly provided by the judiciary to not perform
quasi-judicial or administrative functions. Macalintal said that SC sitting en banc as PET, they are
basically performing quasi-judicial functions. He questioned the validity of the constitution of the
SC as PET. He argued that that is proscribed under Sec 12 Art 8. SC said that in resolving the
election contests of P and VP, SC is not performing a quasi-judicial or administrative function. It is
performing its judicial functions.

President made appointments of these judges. How can we guarantee integrity?

• Salaries of the justices of SC and judges of lower courts are fixed by law and the same
cannot be decreased by Congress. Sec 10 of Art 8.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Perfecto v. Mere/ Indencia v. David - SC ruled that the salaries of the members of the SC and
the lower courts are tax exempt. In these cases, SC said that allowing tax deductions from their
salaries would amount to diminution of the salaries. After the ruling of mere and David, 1987
Constitution had a provision under Art 6 that salaries of all government officials, including
members of judiciary, shall be subject to income tax. Take note that that was the provision under
Sec 6 Art 15 of the 1973 Constitution. Under 1987 Constitution, there is no more provision similar to
that.

Question is: at present, may the salaries of judges be imposed with income tax?

Nittaphan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue - Even if 1987 Constitution does not have a
provision similar to that, in case of Nittaphan, it is said that their salaries are not tax exempt.

As for tenure of office, Sec 11 or Art 8, members of judiciary should have to serve office during
good behavior and until 70 years of age or incapacitated to perform their functions.

It is pegged at 70 years old on the supposition that as they get older, they'll get wiser. It could be
cut short when SC employs disciplinary of its own. With a vote of a majority of those who took
part of the case and voted thereupon, they can dismiss a judge. It is an extreme penalty. In most
cases, SC will just impose fines or suspension.

Actions involving judges should be filed with the Office of the Court Administrator. What about
law re-organizing judiciary?

Sandueta v. De la Costa - Sandueta accepted post but was not permanently placed on that
post. He wanted to go back to his old post, but it was already occupied by De La Costa. SC
decided case on principle of estoppel. It did not touch re-organization.

Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice / Delaliana v. Alba - SC ruled squarely on the validity or invalidity
of re-organization law. In this case, there was a re-organization law pursuant to which some
courts were re-organized or abolished pursuant to the judiciary re-organization law. It was
violative of their tenure, they contended. Security of tenure presupposes the existence of an
office. If it is abolished, there is no security of tenure in that case. Judiciary re-organization law is
valid. It is of doubtful validity. It is expressly mentioned in Constitution that no law shall be passed
re-organizing the judiciary if it undermines security of tenure. IT IS OPINED TO BE NO LONGER
CONTROLLING.

Provision dealing with fiscal autonomy. Judiciary can have fiscal autonomy. SC has the power to
fix the rates, charges, or fees to be paid in filing the case. Filing fees for civil cases or for certiorari
have increased exponentially by 200%. It is valid. SC will not admit that that is unconstitutional. It
is given fiscal autonomy.

Highlights - proscription against judiciary to appropriate below what is given by law.

Appropriation power of Congress cannot decrease but can increase. One case in which SC put
to height fiscal autonomy of judiciary. Involved acquisition of the retired members of SC. Retired
justice who acquired 3 vehicles assigned to him in amount way below COA's appraised value.
SC said they have the right to fix the evaluation. COA had nothing to do to fix the appraised
value. They have fiscal autonomy. SC can be audited, but it cannot be punished aside from
impeachment.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Composition of the SC: 15. Given power to sit en banc or in division of 3, 5, or 7. Of interest is the
last sentence of Sec 4 Art 8. Vacancy would have to be filled up within 90 days following
vacancy. It was raised in connected with the case of:

De Castro v. JBC - the appointment of judiciary should be taken as an exception of Sec 15 Art 7.
SC said filling up vacancies in SC is an exception to the prohibition imposed on midnight
appointments. It was opposed to the ruling of in the matter of Mateo Valenzuela. (Section 15 -
paramount importance in comparison with the vacancy.)

• Atty. Galeon more persuaded by Valenzuela case.

At present we have divisions of 5 members each. What cases involve en banc sitting?
Constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreements, etc. Any issues dealing with the validity of
the law should be decided en banc. Lower courts have that ability, but their decisions may be
reviewed. If SC decides, it should be decided en banc.

Another case is when it is decided in division but votes are not (majority of the votes of those
who took part, but there should be no decision in division made without the concurrence of 3
members) (2-2-1) obtained. It shall be decided en banc instead. After all, there is the required 3
votes.

When case would involve the overturning of a previous doctrine/principle of law decided by SC
en banc or in division. If previously, there was already a decision and there is a new case with
the same matter and a need to overturn, then it should be decided en banc.

When it involves the disciplinary actions of judges. Under Sec 11 art 8, it should be decided by SC
en banc.

Election contests involving P or VP pursuant to Sec 4 Art 7. It needs to transform itself into PET.

POWERS CONFERRED ON SC:

1. SC has original, appellate jurisdictions and administrative functions. Sec.5 Art 8 of the
Constitution. Among the powers is the power to take cognizance of original cases
affecting ambassadors, consuls, or petitions for certiorari, habeas corpus, or etc. As
worded, jurisdiction is merely described as original jurisdiction. It is not stated that the SC
has exclusive original jurisdiction - suggesting that the case may be taken cognizance in
lower courts. Case for certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, can be taken
cognizance of the lower courts and RTC. SC is following the hierarchy of courts. Jurisdiction
is described as original, not exclusive.

Original in the sense that it may be filed in the first instance of the case itself. Appellate is in the
sense that the cases did not originate from SC. It is falling in the purview of filing previously with
lower courts. This was on review by SC. Sec 2 gives SC power to review the final judgment of
lower courts from A to E. Any case involving constitutionality of a law, executive agreement, or
treaty and ETC. RULING IN CASE OF YNOT.

Another case with appellate jurisdiction - validity of a tax, imposed toll, or penalty imposed
thereof. It may be decided by lower courts but may be reviewed by appeal or certiorari.

Any case where jurisdiction of trial courts is in issue.

 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

Any case with penalty imposed by lower courts is at least reclusion perpetua or death should be
reviewed by SC in its exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

People v. Mateo 2004 - Death penalty imposed on Mateo. Case elevated to SC immediately.
What was imposed was death penalty. Under Sec. 5 of Art 8 that cases where these are the
penalties would have to be reviewed by SC. SC said that while it is true that it must be reviewed
by SC, it must be first reviewed by CA, notwithstanding the provision. But it is more favorable to
accused. It is to the advantage of accused.

What is at issue is a pure question of law. If the issue is a pure question of law, you may file a
direct appeal to SC. If with facts and law, it cannot go to the SC directly. File with CA first. Where
law does not provide as remedy for appeal, then it cannot be demanded. A decision in small
claims cases do not get appeal. Is it violative of rights? Appeal is considered is just a statutory
right. It is only a right if there is a remedy provided for by law.

EXCEPTION: Cases mentioned and those falling within the purview of appellate jurisdiction of the
court. Even if law does not provide for appeal, appeal may be pursued as a matter of right as
guaranteed by Sec 5.

Calano v. Cruz - Under old Election Code, there is no remedy for appeal. A recourse was made
with SC because what was elevated was a pure question of law. Dismissal of appeal was sought
by winning parties. SC disagreed because that case falls within purview of appellate jurisdiction
of the SC as stated in Sec 5 Art 8. One of the cases where remedy of appeal is guaranteed is a
pure question of law.

Cases mentioned under Sec 5 Par 2 Art 8 are included only in courts of law, not administrative
bodies.

Roque thing - SC said that case would not fall within the purview of the above because it only
refers to cases decided by courts of law or justice.

Other powers: temporarily assign judges to other posts. Designation limited to 6 months. If
beyond 6 months, then it needs consent of judges and etc.

Sec 5 par 4 of Art 8, SC can change venue of trial/s in criminal cases. In criminal law, venue in
penal cases is jurisdictional. If crime was done in Cebu, then only in Cebu. Not in civil cases,
though. But under this, the SC can order the transfer of penal cases if it is more in line with justice.
ONLY SC CAN DO THIS IN CRIMINAL CASES.

Another power: Rule-making Power. Prescribe rules for enforcement of constitutional rights. SC
promulgated rules on writ of habeas corpus, habeas data, or amparo. This is not a usurpation of
powers belonging to Congress. Constitution vests power on judiciary to protect constitution.
Rules for procedure are promulgated by SC in exercise of rule-making power. Also with dealing
with the entrance and practice of law and providing remedies to indigent Filipinos.

In the Matter of Garcia - petition of Spanish lawyer to practice law without taking bar
examination. Invoked treaty of Spain and Philippines that there was academic freedom. Filipino
professionals could practice their
profession in Spain and vice-versa. SC said that the President has no power to prescribe rules on
who should be admitted to the practice of law.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I | ADRIAN JEREMIAH VARGAS | ATTY GALEON

In the Matter of Eliano - He didn't want to join IBP even if he just passed the Bar. They have the
right for him to not allow him to practice his profession of law.

SC has the power to prescribe, but it should be simplified and inexpensive and quick procedure.
Should not diminish substantive rights.

Subject to rules of civil service. Court appoints members of the judiciary, but it should be done
with accordance to civil service rules.

POWER: Sec 6 Art 8 - Administrative supervision over all employees of the judiciary. Any
disciplinary action would be filed with SC through office of Court Administrator.

CASE: Ombudsman would not be able to decide cases involving judges if it involves the
performance of functions of a judge or an offense that affects his/her integrity.

Garcia v. Romero - Where the case levelled against a judge is completely alien to his functions
or qualifications as such, then it can be investigated by other offices like Ombudsman. What was
involved was reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. It does not involve moral turpitude. If
estafa or immorality, it has to be investigated by SC. It is the moral turpitude of the judge.

In the Petition of the Request for the Production of the SALN on the Members of the Court of
Appeals - There was a petition for them to give copies of their SALN. PCIJ wanted copies of this.
SC said that cannot be done without approval or consent of SC. According to SC, it has
administrative jurisdiction over members of the judiciary. (SELF-INTEREST).

One of the powers to decide a case. RESTRICTIONS:

• SC en banc and decided by division distinctions.

• In respect to legislation making, Sec 15 provides that the SC has a reckoning period of (x)
months. 24 months, 12 months, or 3 month period must be computed from the time the
case is submitted for resolution. Deemed submitted if pleadings required are already filed
in point. TAKE NOTE: It would appear that it is mandatory, but in one case
Marcelino v. Cruz - period are directory but not necessarily mandatory. In Constitution, even if
the reckoning period has lapsed, that cannot diminish the court's power to render decision after
the period. It is still valid, but the court may be imposed with administrative liability.

Lower courts - 3 months.

Added requirement under Sec. 14 that a decision must clearly state facts of case and law
where decision is based. Decision mentions these things - version of plaintiff and defendants,
discuss evidence, explain why decision is such. While it states this, SC has the habit of issuing
minute resolutions (1-page). Merely states the rules. Purpose:

1. Parties may know how court arrived at decisions. For purposes of appeal to cite the
findings of facts which are thought to be erroneous.

If a decision is to be rendered by a collegiate court, before the case is referred to, there has to
be a consensus for justices to agree what the decision would be and attend to that decision.
Even if decision is only written by one justice, that already is rendered after deliberation. If one
member registers his own opinion, he can write a separate concurring opinion or dissenting
opinion. Decorum of 8 would suffice.