CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

We also discussed the Presidential succession as set forth under Sections But when there is permanent vacancy in the office of the President, as
7,8,9 and 10 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. In brief, I’d like to when for example the President dies or shall have become permanently
stress that when there is vacancy or temporary vacancy in the office of the incapacitated. Then on such situation, the Vice-President will become the
President, as when the President shall not have been chosen yet. In the permanent President by virtue of succession.
event for example that there’s a tie and Congress has not yet made a
choice on who should be elected as President or when the President elect The same rule applies if the President shall have been removed from
still fails to qualify as when the President elect fails to take his oath of office or shall have resigned, as what was obtained in the case of Erap.
office and then it’s already noon of June 30 next following his election. So in the event of death, permanent disability or incapacity, or
Then on such situation, the Vice-President elect shall be the acting removal or resignation of the President, thereby creating a permanent
President. So when there is temporary vacancy in the office of the vacancy in the office of the President, then in such situation the Vice-
President, the Vice-President will be the acting President. Acting lang, President will become the President. So where that happens of course,
dili siya permanent. there will be vacancy in the office of the Vice-President. Dunay
movement. Pataas man ang Vice-President.
But when that happens or when the Vice-President becomes the acting
President, will there be an acting Vice-President? So what will happen? How should that be filled up, where there is already
vacancy in the office of the Vice-President?
For example, na-elected na ang Presidente pero wala pa ka-take ug oath.
In the meantime, the Vice-President shall have been elected already and You apply now Section 9 of Article 7, which provides in essence that
shall have already taken his oath. So it’s already noon of June 30, that’s when there is vacancy or permanent vacancy in the office of the Vice-
the commencement of the term of office of the President and the Vice- President, then the President elect or the Vice-President who may become
President. Walay Presidente. Because it is mandated by Section 5, Article the President may appoint a successor from among the members of
7 that the President and the Vice-President should take their respective Congress. The President elect or the Vice-President who may become the
oath of office before commencing their duty functions. So in that President may appoint any member of the Senate or the House of
situation, the Vice-President will be the acting President. But will there be Representatives as the next Vice-President. And the person nominated
an acting Vice-President? shall become the Vice-President if such nomination is confirmed by
majority of the votes of both Houses of Congress, although voting
The answer is NO. If you read the constitution, there is nowhere there separately.
which provides for an acting Vice-President. So nowhere in the 1987
Constitution is there a provision providing for an acting Vice-President. Mao toy nahibato ni Guingona. After Arroyo succeeded Erap, of course
there was vacancy in the office of the Vice-President. So it was filled up
by appointment made by Arroyo because Arroyo became already the

1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

President and she appointed Guingona as the Vice-President. And he So I’ve mentioned that when there are vacancies in both the offices of the
became the Vice-President when his nomination was confirmed by President and the Vice-President, and such vacancy/vacancies are
majority of the votes of both Houses of Congress voting separately. So temporary in character, then the Senate President or the Speaker of the
that’s how to fill up a permanent vacancy in the office of the Vice- House may eventually become the acting President. But if the vacancies
President. So you apply Article 9, Section 7. in both the offices of the President and the Vice-President are permanent
in character, again the Senate President will become the acting President
But where there are temporary or permanent vacancies in both the offices or in his absence, the Speaker of the House.
of the President and Vice-President, then in such situation, the Senate
President will become the acting President or in his inability the But what would happen if we have no Senate President or Speaker of the
Speaker of the House will be the acting President. This happens when House? (Kay asta pud sila, sobraan sa kalipay na-da sa hospital kay
there are vacancies, either permanent or temporary in both offices of the nahagba ang stage nga ilang gipatungan) Who will become the acting
President and the Vice-President. Such that when no President shall been President? In the meantime, wa pay special election. Is it the Senate
chosen yet, no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen yet, or President, the Speaker of the House or the Chief Justice of the Supreme
when no President or Vice-President shall have qualified yet (Wa pa silay Court? Who will act as the acting President?
ka-take oath kay lukso-lukso sila, lipay gi-proclaim sila, nahagba ang
stage ni-collapse, thus hospital, of course walay oath taking). So in that Well, the Constitution provides that Congress should enact a law to deal
situation where there are temporary vacancies in the offices of the with that situation. But up to this time, no law has been enacted by
President and Vice-President, then the Senate President or in his absence Congress. Probably thinking nga di man sad possible nga mag-dungan
or incapacity or inability, the Speaker of the House shall become the ning upat nga wala diha.
acting President. But when there is permanent vacancy/vacancies in the both offices of the
So where there is an acting Vice-President or President for example, or President and the Vice-President, again as I mentioned, the Senate
where the Senate President becomes the acting President, will the Speaker President will be the acting President or in his absence, the Speaker of the
of the House become the acting Vice-President? (Ana siya, uyy ikaw ra House. And where that happens, there shall be a special election. That is,
diay? Acting naman kaha siya as President, ako pud nasay acting Vice- if permanent vacancies occur in both the office of the President and the
President.) Is that the situation? Vice-President. So it’s not enough that we’ll have an acting President in
the person of the Senate President or Speaker of the House as the case
The answer is NO. Because as I have said, there is no such thing as may be, in that under Section 10 of Article 7, there shall be a special
acting Vice-President. That is not provided for by the Constitution. election called for the purpose. It is provided therein that at 10 o’clock of
the 3rd day following such vacancies in the offices of the President and the

2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Vice-President, then Congress shall convene without need of (call?). And President has not been chosen yet to the effect nga nag-tie for example
within 7 days therefrom, Congress shall enact a law calling for special ang Presidential votes and Congress has not yet made a choice, then in
Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections. And such elections should be such situation, the Vice-President elect will become the acting President.
had not earlier than 45 days and not later than 60 days following such
vote or call for special elections. And you take note that a law calling for But you take note that Section 11, Article 7, provides also for another
special Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections will become effective instance/instances wherein the Vice-President will become the acting
on the 3rd and final reading thereof, even without the signature of the President. And that is when among others, the President transmit a
President. Because who’s going to sign? Wa man siya. letter to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, declaring
that he is in the meantime unable to discharge his functions and
And then, the election shall be charged from any available funds because duties. So where that happens, that the President transmit a letter to the
this is an exception to the requirement under Section 25, Par. 4, Article 6, Senate President and the Speaker of the House, stating he is unable to
to the end that there should be an accompany certification by the National perform his duty and function, then the Vice-President will become the
Treasurer as regards to the availability of funds. So this one is an acting President. Acting ra gihapun. Or when majority of the members
exception. of the Cabinet transmit letters to the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House declaring that for them, the President is unable
Remember however that where the vacancies in the office of the President to discharge his duties and functions, then on such situation the Vice-
and the Vice-President occur within 18 months before the next President will become the acting President.
scheduled Presidential elections, then there will be no more special
election. The reason is plain and obvious. Huwaton nalang nah. After all, But if the President disputes that, then the President will reassume his
it’s only about 1 year and 6 months. So it’s just a waste of money. So duties and functions. But if within 5 days, majority of the members of the
where vacancies in the office of the President and the Vice-President Cabinet would rebut also the refutation made by the President, the in that
occur within 18 months from the next scheduled Presidential elections, situation Congress has to decide. If not in session, Congress would have
there will be no more special election. So we just have to be contented to convene without need of (call?) within 48 hours and within 10 days
with an acting President in the person of the Senate President or the following the receipt of the last communication or 12 days from the time
Speaker of the House as the case may be. that they are called to assemble, Congress would have to decide whether
or not the President is indeed unable to discharge his duties and functions.
So that’s how to more or less summarize the provisions under Sections 7, If by 2/3 votes of both Houses of Congress, voting separately, members of
8, 9 and 10 of Article 7. course determinate indeed that the President is unable to discharge his
I mentioned earlier that if at the commencement of the term of office of functions then the Vice-President will become the acting President.
the President, the President still fails to qualify, wa pa ka-take oath or the

3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Remember however that under Section 11, Article 7 the Vice-President Then as for the President, other than receiving his salaries, other than
will not become the permanent President. The Vice-President will only having an official residence, the President of course is immune from suit.
become the acting President. Is that clear? We took this up when we tackled the case of Lozada vs Arroyo. In fact in
the case of David vs Arroyo also, the Supreme Court said that it was
So there are more than 2 situations under which the Vice-President may improper to implead President Arroyo as one of the respondents therein.
become the acting President. So, Because an incumbent President is immune from suit. But this is not
 Section 7, Article 7 provided for under the Constitution. This is rather a case law. This was the
 Section 11, Article 7 result of the decision made by the Supreme Court, the one in the case of
Forbes vs Chuoco Tiaco cited in the case of Erap. So this is not a
So wa natay problema. Remember gyud nang 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. (Atty. G provision under the Constitution, this is a case law. This one’s the decision
is referring to the Sections ha?) made by the Supreme Court. And this is also observed in other
jurisdiction.
Now if a person is elected as the President or the Vice-President, what
perks will he enjoy? Unsa iyang mga privileges? Then among other things also, the President enjoys what is known as
Executive Privilege. The one that we discussed in the case of Neri and
Well for one, if he is the President, he has an official residence. Pwede
CA vs Ermita, where the President among others and even the
kag Malacanang or katong gipuy-an karun ni Noynoy. But there is no
subordinates of the President upon proper invocation of executive
official wife or unsa pa dha. Di nah kinahanglan. So the President has an
privilege may not be summoned to appear before Congress if Congress
official residence.
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
And then the President and the Vice-President would be receiving their
(Then naay nag-ask about particular questions sa MCQ sa Pre-fi)
salaries and their salaries are fixed by law. Well under Section 17,
Article 18 although tentatively it was set at 300,000 per annum, but The subordinates or those under the President may enjoy also executive
yearly it will increase. And their salaries of course cannot be decreased privilege for as long as the same privilege is invoked for them by the
during their tenure. President or by the Executive Secretary. The subordinate himself cannot
invoke this privilege. It has to be invoked for him by the President or by
May their salaries be increased during their tenure?
the Executive Secretary acting on behalf of the President. This is the case
The answer is NO. Any such increase would have to take effect after the of Neri vs (inaudible words).
expiration of term of office of the incumbent President or the Vice-
(Cid then asked whether the Executive Secretary is the same as the
President.
Secretary of State in the US)

4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

So is that clear? So President is immune from suit among others, and he As case in point is the case of Civil Liberties Union cited in the book of
has what is known as executive privilege. Cruz and the book of Bernas where there was this Executive Order 284
allowing members of the Cabinet to hold not more than 2 positions in the
But are there restrictions imposed on the President, the Vice-President government. It was assailed of as invalid and the Supreme Court indeed
and the members of the Cabinet? considered that Executive Order as invalid for being violative of now
There are of course. One such restriction is imposed under the last Section 13, Article 7, provided to the end that members of the Cabinet
sentence of Section 6, Article 7 provided to the end that the President, among others should not be holding additional positions in the
the Vice-President shall not receive any other remuneration from the government. In the case of Civil Liberties Union the Supreme Court
government. You take note that the Vice-President may be appointed by decreed that the only instance other than of course the Vice-President
the President as a member of his cabinet. And that would not need any becoming a member of the Cabinet, that a member of the Presidential
confirmation or consent of the Commission on Appointment. But where family may hold additional position in the government is when the second
that happens, it is submitted that the Vice-President cannot receive any is being held by a member of the Cabinet among others, in an Ex Officio
additional salaries because of the prohibition imposed under Section 6 of capacity. Example of that is the DOJ Secretary. Under Section 8, Par. 1,
Article 7. Article 8 the DOJ Secretary is an Ex Officio member of the Judicial and
Bar Council.
Then another notable restriction or inhibitions imposed on the President
and the Vice-President among others, is that provided for under Section Is that allowed?
13 of Article 7 which provides that the President, the Vice-President, The answer is YES. Because that is provided for under the Constitution
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants shall not, unless and moreover, it is in an Ex Officio capacity, di gyud permanent.
otherwise provided by the Constitution, hold any other office or
employment. But again, in respect to the Vice-President he may be And then in the case also Funa vs Ermita which is cited in the book of
appointed as a member of the Cabinet and that is allowed because the Cruz, the Supreme Court also considered as invalid the designation of the
Constitution, particularly Section 3, Par. 2 of Article 6 allows him to Undersecretary of the DOTC as the acting Secretary for the MARINA.
become appointed or to be appointed as a member of the Cabinet. So a Because by doing such, the Supreme Court said that it was done in
member of the so called Presidential family, the President, the Vice- violation of the prohibition imposed under Section 13, Article 7. A similar
President, Cabinet members, their respective deputies and assistants are ruling was reached in the case of Funa vs Agra where the acting Solicitor
not to hold positions or other positions in the government or even in the General was also designated as the acting Secretary of Justice. According
private sector. to the Supreme Court, no doubt that designation was done in
contravention of the prohibition imposed under Section 13 of Article 7.

5
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

But in the case of Betoy vs Board of Directors of the NPC (Nation of the Presidential family, the President, the Vice-President, members of
Power Coporation) the designation by Congress of some of the members the Cabinet are altogether prohibited from practicing their profession.
of the Cabinet to be members of the Board of Directors of the NPC was Stricto ang sa members of the Presidential family. When I mention
considered as valid because in the law creating the sum, the public sector Presidential family, I am referring of course to the President, the Vice-
as supplied by the (Vismach?) Corporation it is provided therein that these President and the Cabinet members. Di sila ka-practice sa ilang profession
members of the Cabinet would only become ex officio members of the ug di pud sila ka-engage ug private business, unlike the members of
Board of Directors of the NPC. So this again lends (inaudible) to the fact Congress. So in this context, we can differentiate the inhibitions imposed
that other than the Vice-President, members of the Presidential family on the members of Congress and those imposed on the members of the
cannot hold additional positions in the government unless the other Presidential family. And of course normal nga prohibitions, they shall not
position is held in an ex officio capacity. Is that clear? be financially interested on the contracts, privileges or franchises granted
by the government or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
Another restriction imposed on the President, Vice-President, members of
the Cabinet, their secretaries and assistants among others, is that they And far more important, another restriction imposed under Section 13 of
cannot directly or indirectly practice their profession or engage in Article 7 is that the Spouse or the relatives by consanguinity or affinity
business, nor can they have financial interest in any franchise, within the 4th civil degree of the President cannot be appointed as heads of
contract or residential privilege granted by the government, the various Constitutional Commissions or as an Ombudsman or as
subdivision, agency, including government owned or controlled Chairmen or heads of the various departments, bureaus and offices of the
corporations. government including government owned or controlled corporations. In
other words, Section 13, Article 7 prohibits what is commonly referred to
So members of Congress can they engage in business? as nepotism. Nepotism, kana bang spouse or relative of the President
The answer is YES. Under Section 12, Article 6 members of Congress within the 4th civil degree, consanguinity or affinity, cannot be appointed
are not prohibited from engaging in a private business, only that they must to any public position. But if they held office by virtue of election, that is
declare their financial interest. But as I quoted out earlier, members of not prohibited because what is prohibited under Section 13, Article 7 in
Congress need not divest themselves of their financial interest in private respect to the spouse or the relative within the 4th civil degree,
corporations. But as for the President, the Vice-President, members of the consanguinity or affinity, of the President is when they are appointed to
Cabinet, their deputies and secretaries, they are altogether prohibited from public positions. Is that clear?
engaging in a private business. And while members of Congress can still Then another restriction imposed, particularly on the President, is that
practice their profession, except lawyers who are not allowed to whenever the President is seriously ill under Section 12, Article 7 this
personally appear before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the members should be made known or public should be informed of such situation. In

6
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

fact, under Section 12 of Article 7, the heads of the Cabinet in charge of the functions of a given public office. So that is appointment. And
National Security, Foreign Relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed appointment is different from designation. Because designation is just
Forces of the Philippines shall not be denied access to the President even giving additional function/functions to a person who’s already holding an
when the President is of course under serious illness. Unlike, ibutang office. Appointment is a mode of filing up an office. Designation is a
gyud ni siya sa 1987 Constitution because during the time of Marcos the mode of giving additional jobs to be performed by a person who is
public were not properly informed about the actual health condition of already holding a public office. So in that context, we can differentiate
Marcos. Ingon healthy pa si Marcos pero gi-dialysis na diay. So that’s appointment from designation.
why we have Section 12, making it mandatory for the President to
disclose his actual health condition. But during the time of Gloria, na- And appointment may be permanent or temporal. Permanent if the
sobraan sad toh. Ni-link sad toh nga duna siyay breast implant or appointee meets all the necessary qualifications and non of the
augmentation. Di sad toh pwede kay what should be divulge to the public disqualifications such that while he is given appointment, he more or less
is the health condition. enjoys what is known as security of tenure. Temporary, the appointee
does not possess all the necessary qualifications, such that he holds office
(Then nag-discuss more about sa breast implant ni Gloria. HAHAHA! in a temporary capacity. He serves at the pleasure of the appointing
Kaluod.) authority. Or until such time that a qualified person may be appointed to
the same position.
Nasobraan pag-interpret nila ang Section 12 of Article 7, the right of the
public to be informed about the actual condition of the President. And appointment made by the President may be characterized also as
either regular or ad interim.
So any question pertaining to the inhibitions imposed on the President,
Vice-President, among others? Wala na? Okay. Unsay may regular appointment? Unsa maning ad interim appointment?

Let’s now discuss the powers given to the President. Of course, he Regular appointment is the appointment in reference to the
performs executive powers. But among other things, one of the important appointments made by the President, refers to the appointments made
powers vested in the Constitution upon the President is the power to make while Congress is in session. Because under Section 19 of Article 6 if
appointments. And this is provided for under Section 16 of Article 7. Congress is in session, then the Commission on Appointment composed
of members of Congress would also be in session. So a regular
But what is appointment? We’ll start with the basic, what is appointment? appointment is an appointment extended by the President while Congress
It’s different from election, diba? Appointment is the selection by the and the Commission on Appointments are in session. An ad interim
authority vested the power of the person or an officer who is to perform appointment is an appointment extended by the President while Congress
and/or the Commission on Appointment is not in session or is in recess.

7
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Kay ang procedure man gud aning appointment especially made by the Another distinction is that in regular appointment, the appointment is
President is that first, the President nominates a person. Then, it has to be done only after the nomination made by the President is confirmed by the
confirmed by the Commission on Appointment, especially appointments Commission on Appointment. But in ad interim appointment, the
made by the President under the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7, appointment is extended by the President way ahead of the confirmation
which we shall be discussing later on. And then as soon as confirmation is or disapproval made by the Commission on Appointment.
made by the Commission on Appointment, that’s the time that the
President will issue the written appointment known as commission. And And lastly, in regular appointment if the confirmation is given by the
then of course the fourth step is the acceptance. As held in the case of Commission on Appointment, then the appointee shall serve for the term
Lacson vs Romero, cited in your book, nobody can be compelled to of his office. But in ad interim appointment, the appointment is at once
accept an appointment. Otherwise, it would amount to involuntary valid until disapproved by the Commission on Appointment once it
servitude. reconvenes or if it’s not acted upon by the Commission on Appointment,
such ad interim appointment shall last only until the adjournment of
So first, nomination, this is the regular process. Nomination first. Then Congress. And adjournment here may either refer to a regular session of
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. Issuance of a Congress or special session, as held in the case of Guevara vs Inocentes
commission or the appointment proper per se. And then acceptance. But cited in the book of Cruz.
in ad interim appointment, the procedure is not followed. Because
Congress is in recess and because the Commission on Appointment is in It’s like this. (Here, Atty. G is illustrating it.)
recess also, then the President will first appoint a person, subject to the Regular appointment gani, if Congress is in session, the President makes
approval or disapproval by the Commission on Appointment once appointment, then una sah iyang e-nominate then confirmation by the CA.
Congress reconvenes or once the Commission on Appointment also This is regular appointment. But in ad interim appointment, Congress
reconvenes. Ma-reverse ang process. Diba mag-una man unta tong is in recess. Similarly, Commission on Appointment is also in recess. So if
nomination before confirmation, that is in regular appointment. But in ad the President extends appointment while Congress is in recess, such ad
interim appointment, Congress is not in session, mag-una ang interim appointment is valid at once. But the appointee shall hold office
appointment before pa ang confirmation. And this leads us to a until his appointment is disapproved by the Commission on Appointment
differentiation between regular and ad interim appointment. Again, once it reconvenes or if that is not acted upon within the session of the
regular appointment is that extended by the President while Congress or Commission on Appointment, such ad interim appointment shall be valid
the Commission on Appointment is in session. Whereas ad interim is done only until the adjournment of the session of Congress, be it a regular or a
while Congress or the Commission on Appointment is not in session. special session. Kutob ra diri. So ad interim appointment is valid until
disapproved, for example disapproved here, by the Commission on

8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Appointment or until the adjournment of Congress. Lahi ra regular. reappointed to the same position by the Commission on Appointment, by
Regular, since confirmation is done already by the CA because the the President? And may that nomination be again submitted for
appointment or the nomination is made while Congress is in session, then confirmation by the Commission on Appointment? Regular appointment.
the appointee shall serve office until the expiration of his term of office. Is that allowed?
But in ad interim appointment, the appointee shall serve office until
disapproved (his appointment is disapproved) or until the next The answer is NO, because there is already a disapproval.
adjournment (Guys murag nasayup si Atty. G diri, probably he means But may he be appointed to another public position?
until the adjournment, dili until the next adjournment.) of Congress if his
appointment is not acted upon. So in this situation, where the President The answer is YES. Because the disapproval was for a particular position.
makes an ad interim appointment but the Commission on Appointment You follow?
fails to act thereon, ni-reconvene but it fails to act theron for one reason or
Another situation. The President extended an ad interim appointment but
another, then the ad interim appointment shall end at the adjournment of
it was simply bypassed. For one reason or another, the Commission on
Congress. So in that situation, we can say that the ad interim appointment
Appointment did not act thereon. Such that, such ad interim appointment
is simply bypassed. Gi-bypass due to inaction. It ceases to become valid
cease to be valid upon the adjournment of Congress. Question: May that
due to the inaction of the Commission on Appointment. Is that clear?
person be reappointed again or nominated by the President for the same
Okay.
position? While his previous ad interim position was bypassed by the
I’ll give you a situation. Commission on Appointment.

What if for example, the President makes an ad interim appointment The answer is YES. Because again, as stated by Justice Mali, in that case
because Congress is not in session and the Commission on Appointment there was no disapproval. His appointment or ad interim appointment was
is not in session and then, when the Commission on Appointment simply bypassed. This is the ruling in the case Matibag vs Benipayo
reconvenes, the Commission on Appointment disapproved the ad interim cited in your textbook.
appointment made by the President. Of course no doubt, the person
So is that clear now? Regular, ad interim, the effects of bypassing an ad
concern would cease to hold office. But the question is:
interim appointment. Wah natay time magbalik-balik ani. Paspas na gyud
May he be reappointed to the same position? ta ani. Ug di mo kasabot, sige lang, asta man sad ko wa pud ko kasabot.

Pwede ba na? Ad interim appointment, extended by the President to Mr. So again, the appointing powers of the President is provided for under
Monsanto when the CA or Commission on Appointment reconvenes, it Section 16, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. But you take note that
disapproves such ad interim appointment. Question: May he be under Section 16 of Article 7, when the President makes appointment by

9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

virtue of the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7, generally such or naval captain. But appointments of officers of the coastguard or
appointments would need the consent or confirmation of the Philippine coastguard would not need confirmation. Why? Because
Commission on Appointment. And if the President extends appointment coastguard is now under the DOTC. It’s no longer under the National
under the second sentence of Section 16, such appointments would not Defense. Medyo nahimu na siyang Civilian. Exception nang appointment
need confirmation or consent of the Commission on Appointment. sa Philippine coastguard. And then, appointments of the officials whose
appointments are vested in the President by the Constitution.
Again, if the President would extend appointments by virtue of the first
sentence of Section 16, Article 7, generally said Who are these officials whose appointments are vested by the Constitution
appointment/appointments would need the consent or confirmation of the in the President and whose appointments would need confirmation of the
Commission on Appointment. But if the President extends appointment CA or Commission on Appointment?
by virtue of the second sentence of Section 16, Article 7, such
appointments would not need the confirmation of the Commission on The chairmen and the members of the various Constitutional
Appointment. That’s the general rule. Timan-i lang gyud ni. Commissions like the COA, Civil Service Commission or the
COMELEC. This is provided for under Article 19 of the 1987
So what are the appointments which the President may make, pursuant to Constitution, which provides among others that their appointments
the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7 and which would generally need should be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. And more so,
the consent of the Commission on Appointment? that their appointments would fall under the first sentence of Section 16.
Or appointments of the regular members of the Judicial and Bar
It’s there. It is provided therein that the President shall nominate and, with Council, pursuant to Section 8, Pars. 1 & 2 of Article 8. Because again,
the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint heads of the these are officers who may be appointed by the President by virtue of the
Executive Deparments, Ambassadors, other Public Ministers or 1987 Constitution. And Section 8, Pars. 1 & 2 of Article 8, expressly
Consuls, or officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or provides that such appointments should be confirmed by the Commission
naval captain, or other officers whose appointments are vested in him on Appointments.
by the Constitution. So these are the appointments which the President
may make pursuant to the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7 and And then, the appointment of Sectoral Representatives before. Before,
which appointments would need the confirmation or consent on the we had a party-list system of election. Diba I mentioned earlier that one
Commission on Appointment. Again, appointments of Cabinet members, half of the seats allocated to the party-list group shall be filled up by
heads of Executive Departments, Ambassadors, other public ministers or selection made by the President, pursuant to Section 7 of Article 18. You
consuls, would need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, take note that under Section 7, Article 18, appointments of sectoral
appointments of the officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel representatives are vested in the President. But the law is silent as to

10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

whether or not such appointments would need confirmation by the Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of the lower courts.
Commission on Appointment. But in the case of Quintos-Deles vs Because Section 9 of Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution vividly provides
Commission on Appointments cited in your book, according to the that any such appointment/appointments would not need confirmation of
Supreme Court, appointments of sectoral representatives would need the Commission on Appointments, and that is to preserve the integrity of
confirmation of the Commission on Appointment because such the Judiciary. Diba they are appointed by the President by virtue of the
appointment would fall under the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7. 1987 Constitution, yet by clear provision of the Constitution itself, such
Appointments of public officers whose appointments are vested in the appointment/appointments do not need the confirmation of the
President by the Constitution. And no doubt, under Section 7, Article 18, Commission on Appointments. That’s one exception.
the President has the power to appoint sectoral representatives. And while
the law or Section 7, Article 18 is silent, yet such appointment would need Another exception is when the President appoints the Ombudsman or
confirmation of the Commission on Appointment because it would fall Tanodbayan, and his deputies. Because Section 9 of Article 11 of the
within the purview of the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7. Is that 1987 Constitution expressly exempts these appointments from the
clear? consent or confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.

So the general rule is that where the President appoints among others, And lastly, if the President appoints the Vice-President as a member of
officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution, the Cabinet, then such appointment is exempt from the requirement and
generally such appointments would need confirmation of the Commission the consent or confirmation by the Commission on Appointments because
on Appointments. Like in the case of Quintos-Deles. However, there are Section 3, Par. 2, Article 7 is clear that any such appointment of the Vice-
officers that may appointed by the President by virtue of the 1987 President is exempt from confirmation by the Commission on
Constitution but whose appointments would not need confirmation by the Appointments.
Commission on Appointments, by way of exception. Although first So these are the appointments which would be considered as exception to
sentence unta ni because their appointments are vested in the President by the rule that appointments of public officers by the President by virtue of
the Constitution, yet their appointments would fall under the exception. the 1987 Constitution would generally need consent of the Commission
Who are these officers whose appointments are vested in the President by on Appointments. Exception tong 3. Is that clear?
the Constitution but whose appointments would not need the confirmation I mentioned earlier that where the President appoints officers by virtue of
on the Commission on Appointments, by way of exception to the general the first sentence or pursuant to the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7,
rule? such appointments would need consent or confirmation of the
Commission on Appointments. But if he extends
appointment/appointments pursuant to the second sentence of Section 16,

11
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Article 7, such appointments would not need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments because it would fall within the purview of
Commission on Appointments. the second sentence of Section 16.

You take note that under the second sentence of Section 16, Article 7, it is But what if the law authorizing the President to appoint a public official,
provided therein that the President also may appoint other public officers states that such appointment would need the confirmation by the
of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by Commission on Appointments? Nasud sa second sentence, but the law
law or those whom he may be by law be authorized to appoint. itself provides that it would need the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments. (Second sentence man unta nah. Supposedly, it would not
But naa ba tay public officer whose appointment is not otherwise need confirmation by the Commission on Appointments because President
provided for by law? Kinsa mani siya? Naa ba? may appoint other officers whose appointments are not otherwise
Section 16, second sentence provides that the President may also appoint provided for by law or those whom he may be authorized by law to
other officers of the government, especially those whose appointments are appoint, so second sentence. As I mentioned, it is exempt or the consent of
not otherwise provided for by law or those whom he may be authorized the Commission on Appointment is not required.) But what if the law
by law to appoint. But is there a public officer whose appointment is not authorizing the President to appoint certain public officers would require
otherwise provided for by law? such appointment. Would that need the confirmation of the CA? Or would
it not need such confirmation because it would fall within the purview of
We have the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. Naa na, the second sentence of Section 16?
Article 13, Section 17, Commission on Human Rights. But siguro by
(inaudible words) wa mabutangi ug kinsay mu-appoint. Such that in the A case in point is the case of Calderon vs Carale, in respect to the
case of Salonga vs Concepcion Bautista, the Supreme Court ruled that appointment of the members of the National Labor Relations
inasmuch as the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission on Commission. Calderon, kini atong member sa Provincial Board. Pildi siya
Human Rights it’s not otherwise provided for by law, then the Chairman ug kaso sa NLRC and then he wanted to nullify the decision. And then he
may be appointed by the President pursuant to the second sentence of questioned the authority of the members of the NLRC to render a
Section 16, Article 7 and such appointment would not need or does not decision. Because under Article, I think that’s 215 of the Labor Code as
need the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Because it amended, it is provided therein that the Chairman or the members of the
would fall within the purview of the second sentence of Section 16. NLRC should be appointed by the President and such appointment should
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. But the members of
And then as I mentioned earlier, if the President also would appoint the NLRC were all appointed without the confirmation of the CA. So ni-
officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint, then such question si Caldero, oh invalid manang appointment, way confirmation.
appointment/appointments would not need the confirmation of the While under 215, confirmation of the CA is required. But Carale, the

12
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Chairman of the NLRC, contended otherwise. He argued through the Sol- sentence of Section 16, Article 7? Other than the restriction imposed
Gen that such appointments would fall within the purview of the second under the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7, are there any other
sentence of Section 16 and as such, it would not need confirmation by the restrictions imposed on the appointing powers of the President?
Commission on Appointment. But Calderon countered, oh but the law
provides otherwise. But according to the Supreme Court, the provision of THERE ARE.
that law requiring such appointments or confirmation by the CA is One such restriction or additional restriction is the second sentence of
invalid. Because it has the effect of amending the second sentence of Section 13, prohibiting appointment of the spouse or relative of the
Section 16 of Article 7. President within the 4th civil degree consanguinity or affinity.
So if the law authorizing the President to make appointments of certain NEPOTISM. So the second sentence of Section 13, Article 7 is one of
public officers and the law itself provides that it should need confirmation the additional restrictions.
by the Commission on Appointment that law will not prevail over the rule Then, another additional restriction is that provided for under Section 14,
set forth under the second sentence of Section 16, Article 7. So it has to Article 7, provided to the end that appointments made by acting President
prevail. is valid unless revoked by the President within 90 days after the President
So again, where the President appoints officers by virtue of the second shall have reassumed his duties and functions. So the acting President can
sentence of Section 16, Article 7, any such appointment/appointments do make appointments but it can be revoked within a period of 90 days
not need the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, following the assumption or resumption of the President. It’s the President
notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary. That’s the case na, inig reassume niya, within 90 days he has or he may revoke the
of Calderon vs Carale cited in your textbooks. appointments extended by the acting President. Otherwise, if it’s not
revoked, then it becomes valid or permanent. Is that clear?
Klaro? Timan-i lge nah, simple ra. Murag naa gyud mugawas ani kay
grabe gyud ang balik-balik ni-ana, first sentence and second sentence. Another restriction is that provided for under Section 15, Article 7 of the
First sentence gani, with consent subject to the exceptions, katong gi- 1987 Constitution which provides in essence that within 2 months before
enumerate, katong Justice of the Supreme Court, Omubsman and his the next Presidential Elections, the acting President or the President as the
deputies, katong Vice-President. Appointment gani under sa second case may be, cannot make appointments up to the expiration of his term.
sentence, it would not need the confirmation, even if the law provides Except temporary appointments to Executive positions where continued
otherwise. Is that clear now? vacancies therein would pose a danger in public safety or national
security. So mao ning gi-ingun nato prohibition on Midnight
But are there limitations on the appointing powers of the President other appointments. 2 months immediately prior to the next Presidential
than those or the confirmation requirement set forth under the first Election and up to the expiration of the term of office of the acting

13
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

President or the President as the case may be. Generally, no appointments that being later enactment Sections 4 & 9 of Article 8, should be
shall be allowed, otherwise it would be categorized as midnight considered as exception to the prohibition imposed under Section 15,
appointment. Article 7.

This was done during the time of President Garcia, midnight appointment. But my personal view is I think the ruling is not correct. Why? Because if
Of course it was revoked. The midnight appointments extended by Garcia you look at Section 15 Article 7, it is a special law. Special in the sense
were revoked by Macapagal and Macapagal was (sustained?), but when that it governs the appointing powers of the President. And whereas the
his term was about to expire also Macapagal did the same thing, appoint provision under Section 4, Par. 1, Article 8 and Section 9 are but general
pud siya ug midnight appointments. So we now have this expressed provisions pertaining to the appointments of the Judiciary. So again
provision under Section 15, Article 7, prohibiting midnight appointments. Section 15 Article 7 is a special provision in the sense that it restricts the
appointing powers of the President.
But how come Corona was appointed by Arroyo within 2 months before
the expiration of her term? What have you learned in Stat Con? Mag-conflict ang general provision
and special provision? The special provision diba. But ingon ang SC mag-
Well in the case of De Castro vs Judicial and Bar Council cited the buot mo kung exception ni. But you know what’s funny? After Corona
book of Cruz, the Supreme Court said that appointments of the members was appointed and his appointment was affirmed as valid, Arroyo would
of the Judiciary would constitute as an exception to the prohibition have wanted also to appoint Judges of the lower courts, pursuant to the
imposed under Section 15 of Article 7. Because under Section 4, Par. 1 of ruling in De Castro. But ingon pud ang SC, No, di uy, ang Justices lang sa
Article 8 and Section 9 thereof, it is provided therein that vacancies in SC, way labot ang Judges sa lower courts. Naghimu sila ug lain nga
the Judiciary, particularly vacancies in the Supreme Court, would have to exception. But if you look at it (Atty is referring to the two provisions)
be filled up within 90 days following such vacancy. So according to the mas specific ning provision sa Section 15 Article 7, it limits the
Supreme Court, exception ning amo, especially that Article 8 is a appointing powers of the President, ang kining usa kay general. (So
subsequent provision, Article 7 nag-una man. So this is rather the Corona was the Crowning Glory of Arroyo. Corona ni Gloria, Crowning
exception to the general rule. Glory. HAHAHA.) Is that clear?
But the ruling in the case of De Castro vs JBC is contrary to the earlier But the prohibition in respect to midnight appointments set forth under
ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Matteo Valenzuela, A.M. No. Section 15 Article 7, would only apply to appointments made by the
98-5-01 November 9, 1998 where the Supreme Court said that the Chief Executive or the President. It does not apply to appointments
President could not make midnight appointments even in respect to the made by local chief executives like the Mayors or Governors. So it would
members of the Judiciary. So the ruling in the case of Valenzuela was appear that kining Governors ug Mayors could extend midnight
overturned in the ruling of De Castro vs JBC. The Supreme Court said

14
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

appointments. Because in the case of De Rama vs Court of Appeals But can the President appoint an acting Secretary of public (position?),
G.R. No. 131136 February 28, 2001, the SC made it clear that the acting Secretary of Finance, uch that it would not need confirmation of
provision on midnight appointments set forth under Section 15 Article 7 the Commission on Appointments? Can it be done, is that valid?
particularly applies only to the President. It is wanting in application in Appointments of Secretaries in an acting capacity?
respect to the local chief executives like the Mayors or Governors.
Because it was assailed in one case, the case of Pimentel vs Ermita. But
Now appointing power normally carries with it the power to remove the the SC said that for as long as the same is done in good faith and if only as
appointees, right? Such that when the President appoints members of the a (inaudible) (measure?) then that appointment is valid. But the
Cabinet, the President can also remove them from service. And where (yardstick?) of course is good faith. But how to determine if the President
that happens, well they should not be considered as having been removed acted in good faith? It depends on the attendance of circumstances. Kung
in that according to the SC, putting it mildly, wah gyud kuno gi-remove, wa silay ni-qualify, acting lang sa sila. But it should not be for a indefinite
it’s just that their tenure simply expired. But gi-remove gud, for lack of period of time, otherwise klaro na nga gi-circumvent ang first sentence of
confidence. Section 16, Article 7.

But not all appointees of the President may be removed by the President. So you remember the limitations imposed on the appointing powers of the
Example: The President mag-appoint ug mga TanodBayan, Ombudsman, President. Again, secong paragraph of Section 13, then 14 and 15, and
Justices of the SC, Judges of the lower courts, yet under the Constitution then of course the first sentence of Section 16.
these officers, Justices of the SC ,may only be removed by impeachment.
Judges of the lower courts, although appointed by the President, cannot be Then, we’ll go to Section 17, Article 7, which talks about the control
removed by the President but by the SC. Ombudsman, can only be power of the President. It provides that the President shall have control
removed by impeachment. So in other words, not all appointees of the over all the Executive departments, bureaus and offices. And then it
President may be removed by him. Ang ma-remove niya ug klaro, kana ra further provides that he shall ensure all laws be faithfully executed. The
gyud members sa Cabinet. Especially katong mga sa Civil Service Rules, first sentence of Section 17 is commonly referred to as the control
they are also (much a part of service?), they are affected by the provisions power and the second sentence thereof is commonly referred to as the
sa Civil Rules. take care clause of the Constitution.

Okay. I mentioned earlier that where the President makes appointment Control, unsa may control?
under the first sentence of Section 16, Article 7, such appointments would (Well if u are married, kibao mo unsa ning control. HAHAHA.)
need confirmation of the CA.

15
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Okay. It is the power of a superior officer to review, modify or even set functions, and to do things if only to compel them to do something. But
aside a decision or action of the subordinate. Such that in the case of power to Control is more than that. You can perform or you can do the
Lacson-Magallanes vs Pano. There was this rule providing that decisions act itself. You can direct the doing of an act or the undoing of an act. So
in cases rendered by the Secretary of the Department of Bureau of Lands grabe ang power of control.
would become final and applicable. But in one case, the case of Lacson-
Magallanes vs Pano, the decision of the Bureau of Lands was affirmed by And pursuant to this power of control, the President of course, can
the Secreatary on Natural Resources, was further elevated to the office of reorganize the vice-offices under the office of the President. That’s why
the President. So it was assailed of as invalid, because under the rules then we have this so called Reorganization Program. In cases kanang gipang-
obtaining, it became final and executory once affirmed by the Secretary of cite dha, Banda vs Ermita, Pichay vs Office of the Deputy Executive
Agriculture and Natural Resources. So wa nay file ug appeal sa President. Secretary for legal affairs, the SC has invalidly ruled that indeed
But according to the SC, they said that pursuant to the control power of pursuant to this power to control, the President can reorganize the vice-
the President over his subordinates, then such case may still be rebuked departments, or bureaus or offices under the executive branch of the
by the office of the President. government, for as long as the same is done in good faith. So kining good
faith, mao gyud ni catch all, mu-justify sa action sa President.
And the power of control would also include the power of the superior
officer to direct the performance of an act by the subordinate, or the And then pursuant to this power of control, the subordinates or those
undoing of an act by the subordinate, or where the subordinate fails to do offices or bureaus under the executive department are considered adjunct
or act on given situation, the superior officer may act on that situation by of the office of the President. Such that those public officers under the
himself. A case in point is the case of Araneta vs Gatmaitan likewise executive department are considered as alter ego of the President. They
cited in your book, where Congress enact a law authorizing the Secretary are just projections of the office of the President. Such that their acts or
of Agriculture and Natural Resources to promulgate rules pertaining to decisions as are promulgated in the ordinary course of business, unless
trawl fishing. Ang gi-authorize ang Secretary of Agriculture and Natural disapproved or repropriated by the President, should be considered as acts
Resources but President Magsaysay exercised the power himself, in that it or decisions of the President himself because they are his alter egos or
was the office of the President which promulgated rules and regulations projections of the President. This doctrine is what is known as alter ego
pertaining to trawl fishing. It was assailed of as invalid, but the SC doctrine or otherwise known as doctrine of qualified political agency.
sustained by power of the President, noting that what he had over the Subordinates or offices adjunct to the President are considered as
subordinates is power of control. He can perform the act by himself. extensions or projections of the office of the President. And his
subordinates are considered his alter egos. Is that clear?
So control is different from supervision. Supervision is you just
supervise, to see to it that your subordinates perform their duties and

16
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

But while the President has control over the various executive appropriation is vested in Congress. So Zamora said, only Congress can
departments, bureaus and offices, what the President has over the LGU’s create a public office. But in the case of Biraogo vs The Truth
is not a power of control but a power of supervision. This is provided for Commission, the SC sustained the creation of that body or the authority of
under Section 4 of Article 10. A case in point is the case of Dadole vs the President to create that public office. After all, the fundings thereof
Commission of Audit, Dadole is the executive judge of Mandaue RTC. would be taken from the fundings allocated to the executive department.
Then the local sanggunian of the city of Mandaue appropriated or But then, the SC declare such creation as violative of the equal protection
allocated funds, mga allowances for the Judges of the RTC of Manadaue. clause. No doubt, according to the SC, Noynoy had the authority to create
But the amount was reduced by the department of budget and that public office under the office of the President but its creation was
management under the office of the President. Instead of 1000 per month, invalid because it ran afoul with the equal protection clause.
gi-reduce to 500. Ni-question ang huwis, nganu inyu gi-reduce from 1000
to 500. And then the challenge was sustained by the SC. Because Why?
according to the SC, what the President had over the LGU’s is not a Because the trust of that commission was only to run after the past
power of control but a power of supervision. In other words, the President administration of Gloria Arroyo. According to the SC in effect, why zero
cannot substitute his judgment for that of the local chief executives in on the past administration of Gloria, why not investigate all the past
because this can only be done if what he had over the LGU’s is power of administrations. As if the SC is saying the Arroyo administration is as
control. Pero supervision raman, so the President merely sees to it that corrupt as the administrations before her. So sila tanan e-investigate. Kang
they perform their given functions. He cannot substitute his judgment for Noynoy kay ang administration raman ni Gloria. So it’s just a question on
the chief executives of the LGU’s. That’s the ruling in the case of Dadole putting an “s” to the word administration. (inaudible words, paspas si
vs CoA. Atty.) he could have amended the executive order creating that body, but
Then ang (filtered?) clause ana, a good example of that is the case of he did not because again, he didn’t recognize the authority of Corona.
Zamora vs Ochua which was consolidated in the case of Biraogo vs The Panahon man tong Corona, siya man ang Chief Justice. He didn’t
Truth Commission, it is cited in your book, where President Noynoy recognize the appointment or the validity of the appointment of Corona.
created the truth commission to be chaired by Davide to investigate the Kung akoy P-noy, pila ray pagbutang ug “s.” Instead of past
past administration of Gloria Arroyo. In that case, the authority of the administration, past administrations. So that would do away with the
President was challenged because according to the petitioners, the objection. But lang si abnoy, wa man sad.
President cannot create an office. He can reorganize the various offices So the creation of the truth commission, the authority of the President was
under the executive department but he cannot, according to the anchored on his authority to see to it that all laws be faithfully executed.
petitioners, create a public office. Because creation of public office would So it was anchored on the second sentence of Section 17, Article 7.
entail disbursement of public funds. And we know already that power of

17
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Okay. Let’s talk about the military powers of the President. And President had already called out the military to suppress lawless violence,
although we’ve already discussed this in passing when we discussed the invasion or rebellion. You take note that unlike before at the time of
case of IBP vs Zamora, I’m referring to the provision under Section 18, Marcos, under our present Constitution, the President even when he
Article 7. It is provided therein that the President shall be the commander declares Martial Law is not given additional powers. Again, it is nothing
in chief of the Armed Forces even if he has no military training. So that is but announcement that the President had already called out the Armed
the power vested among others, on the President by Section 18, Article 7. Forces to suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. But in the case
of Marcos man gud, dunay may mga atrocious committed. That’s why we
So pursuant to his power as the commander in chief, the President in the had a negative perception of what Martial Law is.
case of Corona vs Jalandoni, was said to have this authority to create
national war crimes to try war criminals, but that was karaan na nga But when the President declares Martial Law, it does not necessarily
kasoha. Then in the case of Aquino vs Military Commission No. 2, the follow that the entire Philippine Archipelago would be placed under
President also has the power to create, a military commission was also Martial Law. It can be declared only in a particular area. Like in the case
upheld as an implement of his powers as commander in chief. But in the of, as an aftermath katong Ampatuan katong sa Maguindanao
case of Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34, the SC made it clear Massacre, only Maguindanao was placed under Martial Law, not the
that military commissions as are created by the President would have no entire Philippines because Martial Law would be declared not throughout
jurisdiction over the civilians. It may only assume jurisdiction over the Philippines but only on a particular part or portion thereof. So that is
military personnel. But the thing is, the President can create this tribunal Martial Law. Again, no additional powers are given to the President. (But
pursuant to his power as the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. we had a different connotation, during the time of Marcos, as was recalled
to me by Atty. Torregosa because he was already of age probably at that
Then Section 18, Article 7, talks also about this calling out power of the time. HAHAHA.)
President, to call out the Armed Forces to suppress or prevent any lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. We discussed this in the case of IBP vs The President also is given the power to suspend the privilege of the
Zamora. This power is more or less absolute or the President is given this writ of habeas corpus. Again, what is suspended is the privilege of the
discretion of power to call out the Armed Forces, yet the SC may review writ itself. Meaning to say, that the President cannot prevent us from filing
the same if only to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse a petition for habeas corpus. Habeas Corpus is a remedy provided for by
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the rules wherein the court may issue a writ commanding a person,
detaining (inaudible) the person to present a (warm?) body of the person
But another important power that’s granted under Section 18, Article 7, is so detained at a designated time and place, and to explain the cause of
the power to declare Martial Law and/or to suspend the privilege of such detention. So what may be suspended by the President is not the
habeas corpus. Well Martial Law is nothing but an announcement that the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, but merely the privilege thereof. The

18
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

President also cannot prevent the Judge issuing the writ itself. Only that if declaration of Martial Law and/or suspension of privilege therein, the
the Judge issues a writ of habeas corpus but then the President suspends President within 48 hours has to submit a report to Congress, either
the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, then the writ will just be returned. personally or in writing. And within 24 hours, Congress has to convene.
But the writ is not necessarily voided, only nga di niya ma-enforce And Congress now has the power to revoke such declaration of Martial
because there is a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus. And the
So kung naay tao gi-detain sa (call?) sa officers, (inaudible words) required votes is simple, simple majority votes of the members of both
meaning the officer will not have to comply with the writ. But then the Houses in joint session assembled and voting jointly. Simple, you
filing of the case will remain. It will not be dismissed. combine all the members of Congress, Senate and House of Reps, then
you get a simple majority. And that’s enough to revoke such declaration of
So the powers granted by Section 18, Article 7, is that the President is Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
the commander in chief, he has the calling out power which is less
pervasive, and then he has the power to declare Martial Law and/or the And you take note that under Section 18, Article 7 such revocation of
power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus cannot be set aside by the President. Dili pwede iyang e-veto.
And you take note that under Section 18, Article 7, there are limitations But there’s a catch. Upon the initiative of the President, Congress by the
imposed on the military powers of the President, especially on his power same number of votes, also extend the period of Martial Law and/or
to declare Martial Law and/or to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. And sadly, in the
corpus. Constitution there is no limit as to how long can such extension be
What are these? granted.

First, the grounds are specified. He can declare Martial Law or suspend Another safeguard against the power of the President to declare Martial
the writ of habeas corpus if there is invasion or rebellion and far more Law is that under the present Constitution, the SC is now in power to
important, when public safety requires. So even if there’s invasion or review the sufficiency of the factual basis for declaration of Martial Law
rebellion, yet there is no public necessity to suspend the privilege therein, or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. And then, the
then the President must not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas rule on legal standing is relax in that any private citizen may file a petition
corpus. and such petition must be resolved within 30 days after filing.

Then as a matter of rule, under Section 18, Article 7, such declaration of In the past, there were flip-flopping decisions on whether or not the SC
Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can review the factual basis for declaration of Martial Law. In one case,
must only be good for 60 days. And if Congress and of course after such Montenegro, the SC said well that is beyond the ambit of judicial review.

19
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

That is a political question. In the case of Lansang vs Garcia, the SC said (Then nag-ask si Cid kung wala bad daw rights nga ma-impair)
the SC had the power to review the sufficiency factual basis. But in the
case of Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile, the SC reverted to its ruling in Well, wala gyud. Unlike the time of Marcos. During the time of Marcos
Montenegro, saying that it could not review because that is a political man gud, the military could conduct searchers without search warrants.
question. Now it is made clear that the SC had that authority to check on They can arrest persons without warrants of arrest.
the possible abuses that may be committed by the President. (Then follow questions daun ni Cid, sorry di na nako maklaro)
Then another safeguard is that even when the President declares Martial (Afterwards, Chika-chika daun about sa mga Presidential Candidates, and
Law, the Constitution would remain effective. And of course the then whether ganahan na daw si Atty. kay Duterte nga mahimung
functioning of the civilian courts and the (inaudible) assemblies would not Presidente. HAHA.)
be supplanted. Civilian courts would remain open and the military
tribunals would no jurisdiction over the civilians. Pardoning Power

And far more important, a declaration of Martial Law does not carry The pardoning power of the President is set forth under Sec. 19, Art VII
with it suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus. There has to which provides in essence “Except in cases of impeachment and, or as
be separate declarations, Martial Law and/or suspension of the privilege
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant
of the writ of habeas corpus.
reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures,
Then another limitation, is that this suspension of the privilege of the
after convictions by final judgment.
writ of habeas corpus may only apply to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or any offense inherent in or directly connected with invasion. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of
And then persons arrested, kay pwede man nga dakpon ka, rebellion is a majority of all the Members of Congress.”
continuing offense, so you will be arrested without a warrant. But under
Q: What is reprieve?
Section 18 Article 7, it is provided therein that the person so detained or
arrested must be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise they shall be A: Reprieve is a form of executive clemency whereby the execution or
released. And although this is not mentioned under Section 18 Article 7, enforcement of the final decision or judgment is somehow postponed. Let
even when the President suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas say for example, the final judgment is theft and convict is a pregnant
corpus, the right to bail shall remain, as provided for under Section 13 of
Article 3. Bisan pag dunay Martial Law or suspension of the privilege of person, the execution can be postponed. In effect, prolonging the agony.
the writ of habeas corpus. Prolonging the inevitable.

20
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Q: What is commutation? 2. It cannot be granted during impeachment. It cannot be granted to a

A: Reduction of the penalty. So if what is imposed is death penalty, it can person being impeached. But how about ERAP? Why was he granted
be reduced to life sentence. pardon by Arroyo? Because ERAP was not impeached. The impeachment
Q: What is pardon? proceedings did not push through because the prosecutors walk out.
A: It has the effect of relieving the convicted person of the penalty ERAP was convicted by plunder although he was never impeached.
imposed on him. Forfeitures of the fines imposed in favor of the state. Although there was a proceeding.
Q: How do you distinguish pardon from parole? 3. If pardon is given to a person guilty of an election offense - approval of
A: In parole, you have to serve the minimum imprisonment of penalty that the COMELEC.
is imposed by law. In probation, it is not required. And in pardon, if what 4. Cannot be extended to persons cited in contempt, may it be in contempt
is granted is absolute, then the person is restored into his civil and of the Senate or House of Rep or of the court.
political rights or liberties. In parole, technically speaking, he is only 5. It cannot wipe out any civil liability given to a party litigant. After all,
released from imprisonment. such award for damages will not go to the government but to the party
Q: Parole from Probation? litigant himself.
A: Pareho raman sila pagawson. Parole, release on date. Probation is also 6. Will not restore an office that is forfeited except if the same is founded
released on date. But what is the difference between the two? In parole, on the pure incense of the person convicted.
one must serve the minimum penalty. In probation, the person may not at
all serve the minimum penalty as long as the penalty imposed is below six 2 kinds of pardon:
years of imprisonment. And parole, is an executive grant. Probation is 1. Absolute - no conditions imposed. No strings attached. If such is
granted by the court. Anyway, it is just a matter of reading your book. granted, the person cannot refuse.
Limits on the pardoning power: 2. Conditional - where there are conditions imposed, then the person
1. Sec 19, Art VII - can only be granted after conviction by final should give his consent or approval. Otherwise, because there are
judgment. It cannot be granted before finality. restrictions imposed. Kasagaran ani, plant trees, community service, they

21
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

should not commit an offense during the conditional pardon. But the is restored again for his civil and public right. This is the ruling in the
conditions imposed should not exceed the period of the original penalty. case;
Let say for example, the penalty is imprisonment of not more than seven Pelobello vs. Palatino
years, the condition should not exceed more than seven years. Sobra na Where what is granted is absolute pardon, the person is restored to his
sad na. Again, what is important is that conditional pardon must be civil and political right, including his right to run for a public elective
accepted by the person granted the same. post.
Q: What is the effect if there is violation of the conditional pardon? Q: But can a public office once forfeited be restored?
A: A person may be imprisoned and he can be prosecuted for violation of A: Generally, No. As ruled in the case of;
Art 159 of RPC,violation of pardon. And the remedies are cumulative. Monsanto vs. Factoran
Meaning, they can avail of the admin order, imprisonment, and Where the person here was convicted for estafa due to falsification of
prosecution for violation of Art 159. And as ruled in the case of; public documents. She was a municipal treasurer. She was granted
Escuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol absolute pardon by the president, now she requested for reinstatement.
If the conditional pardon requires the non should not commit an offense, But the SC opposed saying that the absolute pardon did not totally
then a mere commission of another offense will merit the violation of the obliterated the offense that she committed. So the grant the absolute
pardon. It is not necessary that he be convicted of that offense. Mere pardon will not ipso facto restore a public office that was once forfeited.
commission will suffice even if in the end, he be exonerated of the charge Except where the same is granted in the pure innocence of the person. As
because he did not show up, he can still be liable for the provisions of his what was granted in the case;
pardon. The ruling is a bit unfair but it was reiterated in another case Garcia vs. COA
Sumulong vs. Gonzales. So mere commission of an offense is already a Where automatic reinstatement was ordered by the SC. But generally,
violation of a conditional pardon. absolute pardon will not restore an office once forfeited.
Effect of Pardon:
1. Absolute- the person can run again for public office because the person Amnesty

22
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Q: But how do we differentiate amnesty from pardon? person here was convicted of estafa through falsification of public
A: Pardon is an executive clemency while amnesty is a title of a song! documents (she was a municipal treasurer) she was granted absolute
pardon by the president, so she claimed reinstatement. But, the Supreme
Amnesty, is such a lonely word! (Harhar, Atty! Katawa mi!) Bitaw,
Court DISAGREE. Although she was granted pardon by the president but
pardon is an executive pardon involving all kinds of cases. While amnesty the granting of pardon would not totally obliterate the offense that she
extends only to political cases. And normally amnesty is given to a group committed.

of individuals while pardon is only given to a single individual. Such that So, the grant of absolute pardon is not ipso facto restored an
amnesty would not necessitate individual acceptance kay collective man public office that was once forfeited EXCEPT where the same is granted
base on pure innocence of a person. As what was obtained in the case of
ang pag-grant. Where as pardon needs individual acceptance. And far
Garcia v. Commission on Audit were the absolute pardon was anchored
more important, amnesty needs the concurrence of the majority of the on the innocence of the person such that automatic reinstatement was
members of Congress while pardon needs not the said concurrence. ordered by the SC . BUT generally absolute pardon will not restored an
office that was once forfeited.
Pardon should be pleaded in court because a private act of the President
while amnesty is a public act. The court need not be informed. Amnesty But then again, you take note sec 19 article 7 provides that
president may grant amnesty. But how do we differentiate amnesty from
looks backward, meaning it totally obliterate the offense, it is as if the
pardon? Pardon is an executive clemency and may grant in ordinary
person did not commit an offense at all whereas pardon is the opposite. It crimes, while amnesty is extended in political offenses. Normally
operates prospectively. Pardon may wipe out the penalty but not the crime amnesty is granted to a group of persons/ individuals where as pardon is
but amnesty wipes our both. BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT (gosh! Balik given individually such that amnesty would not necessitate individual
acceptance (kay collective man ang pag grant). Whereas pardon
balik) AMNESTY NEEDS THE CONCURRENCE OF MAJORITY OF individual acceptance. And far more importance amnesty is concurrence
CONGRESS WHEREAS PARDON NEEDS NOT OF THE SAID of the majority of members of congress, pardon does not need any such
CONCURRECE. concurrence by the members of congress. And then, Pardon should be
pleaded in court so that person may be release in jail, because that was a
When absolute pardon is granted, the person is restored to his civil
private act of the President. Amnesty is a public act, so it can taken
and political rights including the rights to seat in a public elective post.
judicial notice of/ by the courts without need of the party to inform the
But when it restored a public office once forfeited, the answer is
court about the grant of such amnesty. Amnesty looks backward,
generally NO. As question in the case of Monsanto v. Facturan, when the
meaning it totally obliterates its offense as if the person has not committed

23
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

any offense at all, while pardon does not obliterate the offense, it operates there has to be or dapat naa written consent/ approval and it has to be
prospectively. Pardon merely wipeout the penalty but it does not totally secured in advance). The approval shall be given by the monetary board
wipeout the crime. The Amnesty wipeouts not just penalty but also the before the president could contract foreign loans or guarantee foreign
crime. So that how to distinguished pardon v. amnesty. But what was loans. (I think this is understandable kay mangutang jd ang Philippines).
important, is that amnesty needs concurrence of the majority of the Of course there is this requirement the monetary board shall submit the
members in the congress whereas pardon does not requires such periodic report 30 days at the end of each quarter.. xx will submit its
concurrence. report to the congress about its decision on xx application contracted by
the government or any GOCC.
PARDON AMNESTY
Sec21 article 7 talks about the powers of senate to give
 Pardon is a executive  Extended in political concurrence to international treaty or international agreement entered into
clemency and may offenses
by president. The required vote is at least two thirds of all the members
granted in ordinary  Granted to a group of
crimes. of the senate. So the concurrence power is that, collectively vested in
persons/ individuals.
 Granted individually.  Amnesty is concurrence of congress but only to the senate (the required votes is first members of in
 Pardon does not need any the majority of members of the senate).
such concurrence by the congress.
members of congress.  Public act. Take note, however that what is grant to the senate is power to concur in
 Private act (by the  Amnesty looks backward, the treaties or international agreement entered into by the president.
President). meaning it totally Because the treaty making power is vested in the President, the case in
 Pardon does not obliterates its offense as if point is the case of Pimentel v. executive secretary, whereby Erap sign the
obliterate the offense, the person has not treaty dealing with Rome statute xxx? After signing, Erap did not transmit
because it operates committed any offense at the same to the senate. So, Pimentel filed in court if only order to
prospectively. all. compelled the office of the president xxxxxx to transmit the treaty in
 Wipe out penalty only.  Wipeout both penalty and
senate for compliance. Then the SC in this case clarify, the treaty making
the crime.
power is NOT VESTED in the senate but in the PRESIDENT. In short,
the president has the power to sign xxxx treaties and what is granted to the
We move on, to the borrowing powers of the president, under sec senate is the power of concurrence. If the president does not transmit to
20 of article 7 the president make contract or guaranteed loans on the senate the signed treaty , that treaty will not become effective.
behalf of the republic of the Philippines but it has to be done with the Although it is signed but it didn’t become effective, because section 21
prior concurrence or consent of the monetary board. (dili pwde cya2x ra, article 7 provides that, “ no treaty or international agreement shall be

24
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two- thirds of all the tariff powers with delegated by the congress pursuant to sec 28. Parg 2
members of the senate “ so in that case, (in the case of Pimentel v. artcle 6. Then, artcle 9 although di nato ma discuss but to xxx so in other
Executive secretary) the Supreme Court said that, the senate cannot words the powers of the president are not confined under article 7, in fact
compelled the President to transmit the signed treaty although the effect there is one case Marcos v. Manlapos (not sure)? The Supreme Court said
that the treaty will not become binding and effective in so far as that the president may perform what is known as residual power, for as
Philippine is concern. But what is important , the power of senate is only long as the same relates (?) to the executive function of president. What
the power to concur. happen in this case (marcos case) President Aquino xxxx barred the corps
of president marcos. Gi barred niya ang entry?? Xxx because according to
Sec 22 artcile 7, talks about the budgetary powers of the president. In that the petitioner marcos there was no law or no legal provisions permitting
the President is mandated to submit to congress thirty days (30) from the the President to barred entry of xxx death of president marcos, but the
opening of its regular session. A budget or expenditures of the financial Supreme Court sided with the president, holding that although there was
or sources xxxx because it is the set as a basis for further enactment of a no law granting to the president but basically executive in character. So,
general appropriation bill. (diba we already discuss this appropriation bill pursuant to the residual power is only validly exercise by the president
that it has to originate in HOR). So section22 of article 7 should even absence of express provisions.
correlated to section 25 of article 7 of the 1987 constitution.
JUDICIARY
Section 23 of article 7 mentioned “the President shall address the
congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear Under sec 1 article 8 that judicial power vested in one supreme court and
before it at any other time”. in such lower court as established by law.

The words “shall” here is a mere discretionary on the part of the One Supreme Court. It is not number one court. Ingon pang Sharon
president deliver/ address the congress at the opening. But almost always “kasi pag may number one may number 2” hihi :) di ba? So one Supreme
mo deliver jud na cya kay para pogi points, so naa jud na ang mga boss, Court.
kayo mga boss..so that is the address. Again it’s not mandatory, although
the word used is shall. Take note however that the power of the president The other courts are:
are not merely confined to provisions under article 7 because you take Court of Appeals
note in the past as we discuss under article 6, like the power to veto a bill,
dba? The power to call for special session of the congress under sec 15 Regional Trial Court
article , then the emergency powers- if delegated by the congress to the
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities
president under sec 23 parg. 2 article 6, then we may have the exercise of

25
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Municipal Trial Courts should only be one Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court in
that case if we have to accommodate that provision that would appear,
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts there would be another body of the Supreme Court. These ad hoc supreme
And you may add the Court of Tax Appeal court and the regular Supreme Court. So it was considered as invalid
because again there should only be one Supreme Court. Supreme in the
Sandiganbayan sense that if it commits error then its error will form part of the Law of the
Land. That’s the doctrine here, error committed (inaudible) of judge that
Sharia’ah Courts for Muslims
is gross ignorance of the law perhaps murdering on insanity. Sa Court of
Appeals aw sa RTC, grave (inaudible) agreversible? Error. If the error was
committed by the CA, that is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Okay, these are ofcourse the ordinary Courts of Law. But you take or excess of jurisdiction. But if the error is committed by the Supreme
note however that the Supreme Court is the only Constitutional Court, Court that is the law of the land. So where do you go if you are not
the only court that is created pursuant to the Constitution. All the other satisfied with the ruling of the Supreme Court? What is your remedy?
courts are but Statutory Courts in that they are merely created by Law as There is no other court higher than the Supreme Court. Asa man mo?
enacted by Congress. Is that clear? So, the Supreme Court is the only Kangaroo Court? People’s Court? NPA? Of which Atty. Torregosa is a
court that is created pursuant to the Constitution and there should only be member. Nawng Puros Agtang-NPA. HAHAHHAHAHHA. Or the other
one Supreme Court. A case in point is the case of Vargas vs. (villorosa?) Court, the one situated in SM? What court is that? (everyone laughing
stated in your book whereby after, was it second world war? Katong we’re uban loading XD ) --- no that’s not. There’s only one Supreme Court. So
invaded by the Japanese? Okay, and then there was this law, this People’s if you don’t like. You are not satisfied with the ruling of the Supreme
Court Act which provides under Section 20 thereof that trying Court, what is your remedy?
collaboration cases (20:26) kadtong mga cases involving mga capili?
Those traitors who sided with the Japanese occupant, it was provided that You can of course initiate, of course if you have friends in Congress.
in trying collaboration cases, the members of the Supreme Court who Impeachment against the members of the Supreme Court. That is your
served during the Japanese occupation will have to inhibit themselves. only remedy. But its a long shot.
And they will be replaced by ad hoc members to be appointed by the
How many members do we have in the Supreme Court?
President from the Court of Appeals or from the Regional Trial Court.
And that was questioned in that case. 15. One chief justice and 14 Associate Justices. And they will
sit en banc in their session or a division of three, five and seven.
And the Supreme Court said that, that could not be done because as
And then we have a provision in Article 8, to the end that any
stated under the Old constitution and in the 1987 Constitution, there

26
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

vacancy in the Supreme Court, must be filed up within 19 days In the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod the Supreme Court came up with
from the occurrence thereof, this was the basis for the ruling in a broad definition of what would constitute as a “Practice of Law” such
the case of De Castro vs. JVC. Which we already discussed that in that case Justice Cruz registered a strong dissent.
before, which was interpreted as an exception to the midnight
(raid???) to the (prohibition??? provision??...) regarding legal Justice Cruz:
appointment provided for Sec 15 article 7. Perhaps the only exception to the ponentia is a lawyer “kuno” who
But what are the qualifications for the members of the Supreme derives his income by teaching ballroom dancing and escorting wrinkled
Court and the members of the Judiciary? ladies with pubescent pretensions.

Well, for the members of the Supreme Court and other collegiate Dah! Grabi gud sukuang Justice Cruz. Kabroad gud intawn ana! And
courts like Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. One has to be a exception ana kadto ng Lawyers who teaches ballroom dancing nya what
Natural Born Filipino. And that is a common qualification for the I like is kadto nga phrase “and escorting wrinkled ladies with pubescent
members of collegiate courts like Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals pretension. Matod pang Madaam Auring “may asim pa po akooooooo
and Sandiganbayan. (pina my precious voice haha) di ba? Those who refused to yield with the
ravages of time bisan pag grabi na tapakan ra nag pulbos para okay pa.
And in addition for one to become a justice of the Supreme Court, it Ngano ba gyud intawn. Aged gracefully mao jud nay moral lesson diha.
has to be at least 40 years old. (so muqualify nas Atty. Torregosa I think) So mao na practice of law mamaligyag buwad (laugh) because that
and then he must be for 15 years or more a judge of the lower court or involves application of law.
must have been in the practice of law. 15 years or more.
Then for the members of the lower courts under Section 7 par.2
But what is practice of law? As defined in he case of kadtong Article 8. Congress is given the power to prescribe the qualifications for
Monsod. Anything that involves application of Law. the members of the or judges of the lower courts. But there is a minimum
qualification that one has to be a citizen of the Philippines and must be a
(So kung magbaligya kag buwad, it involves “Application of Law” member of the Philippine Bar.
because that involves sales and transaction hahahah oh? Labinag utangon
oh credits nasad, or makautang nimo to iya giprenda iya motorcycle that So for the members of lower Courts specially RTC, MTC it is NOT
involves pledge. LOL ka talaga Sir!!) required that he must be a natural bord Filipino. It is enough that he is a
citizen of the Philippines. But I wonder if the Supreme Court would allow
qualification of the supreme to take the BAR if he is not a naturalized
born Filipino.

27
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

(Class said NO. Cited the case Chen?) flung areas. One I know is assigned to Talisay City, he was desginated
also as the presiding judge of RTC of Bugo, so layo kaayo tawn. So what
Unya di ba naa man ta ruling na kadto muelect natural born naman do you expect? Dugay gyud ang setting, ang schedule. Kausa ragud sa isa
na. But under Sec 7. Par 2. The minimum qualification for the judges f the ka buwan mo dato layo gyud.
lower court is that he must be a citizen of the Philippines. As if a person a
(mumbling) cannot the BAR exam. Nga kung foreign sounding gani inyo Q: ….
surname ipatawag man gane mo sa Supreme Court ana. You’d be required
to show proof that you are a natural born Filipino. Atty G: Well dako na ang sweldo. Before medjo minimal. But okay na
according to Judge Advento. The net salary of the RTC judge would be
We had one student before Uzaki, the first name is Kazuma Uzaki but around 150k per month…. It is a good thng kay in the past, the salari is
he graduated na in Arellano. Irequire na nga you proof that she is indeed a not that attractive, so other would be tempted to receive bribes. Except
Filipino. however sa kadtong strong judo g conviction og kadtong mga fair jud na
judge.
But there are common qualifications. Ingon sila members of the
judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and Ayaw mo panundong sa mga huwis na modawat og bribe. I think I told
independence. As if tinuod! (Well, truth and in fact di ka maappoint if wa you about this. 100,00 from the plaintiff, kahibaw ang defendant, ging
kay backer, even if you have all the qualifications, gwapo kag credentials outwaeigh pud niya,\. Defendant bribe also the judge for 200,000, the
but if you have no conncetion in the Malacanang or the Congressmen or plaintiff give as a bribe 100,000 then kahibaw man ang defendant so he
Senators then you will not be appointed. Okay) gave 200,000 para ma outweigh niya. But you know what the judge did.
Because he was a fair judge, he made a public announcement in court that
But for one to be appointed as an RTC judge, the law requires that the plaintiff and the defendant bribe him. So since the judge is a fair, he
one must be in the practice of law for 10 years. For an MTC judge, said “I will return the variance 100,000 to the defendant and I will retain
practice of law for 5 years will suffice. So that explains why usahay mga the 100,000 from the plaintiff. And 100,000 defendant. And I will decide
huwes sa MTC di pa kaayo kuan kay 5 years pa gud experience ba. the case in the merits.
Ug mahuwis gani mo, dli gyud mo mangas sa inyong trabaho. Class: KATAWAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Q: … SABAAA BTAWW HAHAHA

Atty G: Well sometimes, we will discusse that later but it should not So table, so the judge decided the case on the merit. Perting luoya sa
exceed separate times but always they would be designated as the defendant because he was as he said, a fair judge. NOW, DON’T BE
presiding judge of another sala. So mangadto sila, mo travel nag layo, fire LIKE THAT.

28
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Someone asks: Tinuod na Sir? and then come up with a a short of atlast 3 nominees for a vacant
position.
Atty G: Ay binutbot ragud! (hay Atty paasa ka telege)
Composition of Judicial Bar Council
Okay, how are they appointed? How are the justices of the Supreme Court
and the judge of the lowe court appointed? The JBC is composed of 7 members

- Of course, they are appointed by the President by releasing atleast - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – as the ex officio chairman
three nominees prepared by the JBC of the Judicial Bar Council in - DOJ Secretary – as ex officio member
cases of vacancies. So kung dunay vacant position, there should at - Member of the Congress – as ex officio member
least be 3 nominees, short list. 3 sila so 1,2,3 but inig abot ana sa
A case in point is the case of Chaves vs JBC, where in the past
Office of the President scratch out na siya, ilisan pana bisay wla
there were two representatives comeing from the congress to act as
nakalista. I lista. Pulihan but under the Constitution the 3
the ex officio member of the JBC. As that time it was Escudero for
nominees are to be prepared by the judicial and Bar council for the
the senate and Neltopas for the House of Representatives. It was
vacant position.
questioned by Chavez, according to Chaves there shall only be one
- And it is required as provided under Sec 9 Art 8 that any such
coming from the Congress but the Supreme Court said, where the
appointment of appoint of the member of judiciary needs no
Constitution say there shall only one member of the Congress as
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. That is pre-
ex officio member. So there shall be only ONE.
supposedly maintained in partiality and integrity of the judiciary,
although they are appointed by the President.
Then the other members are the so called the regular members of the JBC
And of course before coming out with a short list, that is known as the
“Selection Process” and has to undertaken by the Judicial bar Council. - Representatives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
- Law professors
What is JBC or the Judicial Bar Council? – that is created under Sec 8 - Retired justice of the Supreme Court
Art 8, the JBC has its primary task of screening the applicants for the - And a representative coming from private sector
judiciary because the member of the judiciary are not hand picked,
they must apply for them to be appointed. And the regular member of the JBC, as what we pointed out before are
appointed by the President with the confirmation of the consent of the
So bisan pag naa diha taawon nato competent but if they do not apply, Commission on Appointment.
then there is no chance that they will be appointed. And the JBC will
have to do the screening process, they will interview the applicants

29
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

The terms of office of the regular member of the JBC referring to I know one, he got appointed, he took the bar examination 3 times but he
representive of the IBP, law professors, retired justice of the sc and got appointed as a member of judiciary, as an RTC judge. Why because sa
representative coming from private sector shall be appoint for 4 years, short list ingon tong palace kinsa man ato ani, you ask the Congressman
again by the president by the consent of the Commission on Appointment. so and so… kini Number 1, matay murag sa pikas partido mani, dli ni ato.
Number 2, wa pud ni klaro. Number 3, katulo ni mi take of bar exam but
But the members are appointed under the 1987 Constitution, klaro ning ato. See Number 3 is the one chosen. Ana gyud na katinuod.
- the IBP representatives would serve for 4 years In fact I was asked by our congressmen sa una na pwede ba ko ma judge,
- Law professor – 3 years
- Retired justice of sc – 2 years but ingon ko na layo layo pa sad. I told him “okay…” if musgot man gani
- Rep. coming from private sector – 1 year ko, I should be appointed as judge of another region. So ngano gud.
Ngano diay sa ato? Ingon lo “Lisod man”…. Kay ang mga tawn kuna man
Then after the respective succession would serve the full tern of 4 nakooo. So pasensiyahay sa gyud ta. KAY I DECIDE A CASE FAIRLY
years. So there is a staggering of terms. Para dunay continuity of (wooooowwww love youuu atty!!!  )
policy.
STUDENTS GOES WILD *CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP*
So perhaps you may say that independent ang selection of the member
of judiciary because there is the screening body or the JBC but is it And sa RTC way qualification, sa Supreme Court naa gyud na,
really the truth? Independent ba jud siya? Is it free from political
Some asks if Atty T is qualified.
influences?
Atty G: Aw oh. Malapas pa.
- The answer is NO! WHY? The regular member of the JBC are
appointed by the President and they can be reappointed upon their Mao gyud na ang reality especially there are those receiving allowantces
expiration of their respective terms such that there is a tendency from the LGUs that is why our own justices ingles does not receive hos
for them to serve at the pleasure of the president so that their allowances from LGUs but okay raman nang modawat, just maintain your
appointment may be renewed. integrity.
- And for ex officio members, either than the chief justices we have
one coming from the dept of justices who is certainly an ali of the How long does the member of judiciary hold office?
President. Then one would come from the Congress which would
- During good behavior and until they reach the age of 70 or unless
normally be an ali of the President.
they have become incapacitated to perform their duties and
- So the appointment of the member of Judiciary is not entirely pure
functions.
of any polical color or influences. Naa gyud na.

30
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

- Age retirement is 70, katiguwang naba. the mandatory retirement age of 70. In the case of Justices of SC, under
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, they can be impeached on the
Members of judiciary are mosty men, para sa nila we are like wine, grounds specified in therein. One of which is bribery. So if a Justice of the
pagkatam.is. So magkatigulang pa, magkagahi ang sungay (BAAAAIII D SC is impeached, then they can be removed from service even if he has
KOOO GETSSSS HUHUHU) not yet reached the age of 70. As for the Judges of the lower courts, of
course they are not impeachable officers but they can be removed from
Nigel: Oh my god, Gi kilig si Cid. service upon judgment of the SC. Under Section XI Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution, the SC en banc shall have the power to discipline and
The truth is the spirit is willing but the body is weak. (HAHAHAHAH even dismiss judges of the lower courts upon the majority votes of those
KAPOYAAAA KATAWAAAA ATTY BAAAA) who actually took part in the deliberation of the case and who actually
voted thereof. So for malfeasance of office, a judge of the lower court
Last Joke: may be ordered dismiss by the SC. You take note however, that if a judge
of the lower court commits malfeasance of office or commits an act that is
Patient: Doc doc.. tigualang na gyud ko, ingon siya sa una doc doc dli considered an offense but that is in connection in performance of his
gyud mabali, karon doc mabali na gyud. function, it is only the SC which can exercise disciplinary powers over
that particular judge. The office of the ombudsman does not have
Doctor: Dli na pasabot na tigulang naka, ang pasabot ana nagkatigulang jurisdiction over that offense, in other words the office of the ombudsman
ka nagkakusog kay makabali naman. cannot even investigate the erring judge. If at all the ombudsman will just
have to forward the case to the office of the court administrator. Again
Girls: HA??? Unsa Atty? under Section XI of Article VIII, it is only the SC which has the
disciplinary powers over the judges of the lower courts. This is the ruling
Atty G: Well wala mo ana. Ang mga guys makasabot na! in the case of Fuentes v Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao which is
cited in the book of Cruz. But if the offense for which the judge is
Constitutional_October 2, 2015_part 1 investigated has nothing to do with the performance of his functions, then
there is no doubt that investigation of that offense may be conducted even
As was stated yesterday, the Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of by the office of the prosecutor. Say for example namusil ang huwis, he’s
the lower courts shall serve during good behavior until they reach the age accused of frustrated homicide or parricide, perhaps that’s not connection
of 70 or have become incapacitated to perform their duties and functions. in the performance of his functions then that particular offense may be
So even for example if the judge has not reach the age of 70 but he’s investigated not by SC but by the office of the prosecutor. But any other
already become incapacitated to perform functions then he may be offense that be committed by a judge in performance of his function
ordered or advised to retire. So the compulsory retirement age is 70 for should be investigated or has to be dealt with by the SC in exercise of it
the Judges or Justices of the Supreme Court. You take note however, that disciplinary powers. Is that clear?
there are situations wherein a justice of Supreme Court or a Judge of the
lower court may be removed from service even if he/she has not yet reach

31
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

So I’ve mentioned earlier that the Justices of the SC can be removed by Another provision which highlights also the independence of the judiciary
impeachment whereas Judges of lower courts may be dismissed on orders is Section XII Article VIII, which provides in essence that the justices of
of the SC. Looking at it from another viewpoint. It would tell us that the the SC and judges of lower courts as established by law shall not be
Justices of the SC or Judges of the lower courts somehow enjoy designated to any government agency performing quasi-judicial or
independence in that even if they are appointed by the President, the administrative functions. So their functions should be judicial in character.
President has no power to remove them from service. In that context, you In fact this is the contention in the case of Macalintal v Presidential
can say the indeed the judiciary is independent from the executive Electoral Tribunal (PET), the one I mentioned to you about where
department, in that even the officers thereof or magistrates are appointed Macalintal said that the Constitution of the PET is violative of Section XII
by the president, the president has no power to remove them from office Article VIII because according to Macalintal by acting as members of
or service. And you take note also, that other than security of tenure, there PET, members of the SC are performing quasi-judicial or if not
are other provisions in the Constitution which accentuates the administrative functions. But SC in the case of Macalintal v PET ruled
independence of the judiciary. One of which is, Section X Article VIII, that when the PET or members of the SC would decide election contest
which provides that the salaries of the justices of the SC and judges of the involving the returns qualifications of the President and the Vice-
lower courts are fixed by law. It further provides that during the President, they are in effect discharging a judicial function. So the
continuance of their office, their salaries cannot be decreased. In that constitution of PET composed of members of SC is not therefore violative
context, we can say that indeed the judiciary is independent. It is of Sectiion XII Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Is that clear?
independent from the executive department and even the legislative
department where magistrates of the SC and judges of the lower courts Another provision which highlights the independence of the judiciary is
cannot be reduced by congress. It is however important to take note that Section II Article VIII, which provides that while Congress has the power
in the past there were two cases in which the SC said that the salaries of to apportion the jurisdiction of the lower courts, congress however cannot
the Justices of the SC and Judges of the lower court are exempt from deprive the SC of its authority or jurisdiction over the cases mentioned or
income tax. Because imposing income tax in their salaries, according to enumerated under Section V of Article VIII. Anyways, we will have a
the SC, would amount to a diminution of their salaries in contravention to separate discussion on the powers of the SC as vested under Section V of
the prohibition imposed under now Section X of Article VIII. The case I Article VIII. While congress can apportion the jurisdiction of lower
am referring to is the case of “Mer v Perfecto” and “Evencia v David”, courts, congress is powerless to deprive SC its powers as that enumerated
however murag na uwaw sila later on. Such that in the case of “Nictafan v under Section V of Article VIII. In fact BP 129 and RA 7691 enacted by
Commissioner of BIR, the SC after all ruled that their salaries are not congress, reorganizing the judiciary and the aligning also the jurisdiction
exempt from income tax. Ngano gud tawon ang Presidente subject sa of the courts of law and that was perfectly valid because congress has the
income tax , members of congress are subject to income tax ang ila dile. authority to apportion the jurisdiction of the lower courts but it cannot
So medyo na-uwaw sad sila, such that in the case of Nictafan they deprive the SC of its powers over cases mention under Section V Article
overturned their earlier rulings. The rule now is that the salaries of VIII.
members of judiciary are not exempt from income tax. Is that clear?

32
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

But the question is, if congress cannot deprive the SC of its powers as congress enact a law abolishing the lower courts considering that these are
thus provided for under Section V, can congress however increase the statutory courts? No doubt, congress cannot abolish the SC because it is a
powers of the SC in respect to appealed cases. Because the prohibition as constitutional court created by the constitution. How about the lower
thus imposed under Section II of Article VIII is as regards the deprivation courts created by ordinary legislations? Can it be abolished by congress?
by congress of the SC of its jurisdiction over the cases mentioned under In the past, there were two decisions rendered by the SC, the case of
Section V Article VIII, deprivation or diminution. But can the congress Ocampo vs Secretary of Justice and Vilallana v Alba which are cited in
instead increase the appellate jurisdiction of the SC? It depends. It can if your book, wherein SC said that if there would be a reorganization in the
there’s the consent coming from the SC. So congress therefore under judiciary resulting in the abolition of some courts or salas then it would
Section XIII Article VI has the power to increase the appellate jurisdiction amount to a violation to the security of tenure of the judges. Why?
of the SC but it has to be with prior consent of the SC. A case in point, in According to SC, when we speak of the security of tenure that
the case of Fabian v Desierto, GR 129742 September 16, 1998, where presupposes the existence of the office, but if the office or sala is all
under Section 20 RA 6770 or the Ombudsman Act, it is provided therein together removed then there is no security of tenure to speak of. But the
that the decision of the office of the ombudsman in administrative rulings in those cases are now the thing of the past. Why? We have now
disciplinary cases may be appealed further to the SC when under Rule 43 the provision under 2nd Par. Section II Article VIII, provide to the end that
of the Rules of Court any such decision may only be appealed to the CA. no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary if it would undermine a
so there’s provision there Section 20 providing that decisions of the security of tenure of the judges. So it’s a good thing that we now have this
ombudsman in administrative cases may still be appealed further to the prohibition. So the rulings in the case of Ocampo and Vilallana are no
SC but it was struck down as void because SC noted that it had the effect longer controlling. Section II Article VIII, all the more fortifies the
of increasing its appellate jurisdiction and it was done without their independence of the judiciary.
consent. It could have been done if SC was previously consulted about the
matter but it was not, such that it was considered as void. Is that clear? Another provision in the constitution which also fortified the
independence of the judiciary is Section III Article VIII, which provides
Question: April (Inaudible) that the judiciary shall have fiscal autonomy and that the appropriation for
Atty G: Perhaps given a copy of the draft bill and then informing them the judiciary shall not be reduced by congress or by legislature, and once
that there’s a provision increasing their appellate jurisdiction. If the SC approved it should be automatically regularly released. So it has fiscal
issues a resolution giving favorable approval on such proposed bill, then autonomy, that explains why the SC has the power to promulgate rules
that can be done. Ang kato na surpresa man gyud sila, nga oh appealable increasing the filing fees. Sauna file ka ug appeal P500 nahimo nang
ni sa amo when under 43 it’s only appealable to CA. P5,000 multiplied by pila ka percent. The filing fee nowadays have more
than doubled up, perting mahala na. Sauna kanang appeal P500 to P5,000,
You take note that earlier in our discussion, I mentioned to you that it is certiorari P1,000 to P5,000. There was this case we handled involving
only the SC which is created by constitution. The rest are statutory courts recovery of properties, our client paid P500,000 as filing fee. Depending
and that they are only created by a law enacted by congress. CA, on the value of the property. Especially when your action is for recovery
Sandiganbayan, RTC, MTC and among others. The question is, can of the property, the filing fee is based on the zonal valuation of the real

33
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

property, it’s not simply based on the assessed value of the property. So, let’s talk about the power of the Supreme Court and other courts of
Before it was based on the assessed valued but now on zonal value. Part law:
of that would of course are JDF and given to the Justices of the SC, so ila
na. They can do that because they enjoy fiscal autonomy. It is said under the second paragraph of section 1, article 8, JUDICIAL
POWER consists of the duties of the courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights, legally enforceable and demandable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion or an excess of
Because part of that will be of course be considered as JBF and this would
jurisdiction in any part or instrumentality of the government.
be also given to the judges or justices of the Supreme Court, so ila na.
So, JUDICIAL POWER consists of ADJUDICATIVE POWER, the
Then another provision which highlights also the independence of the
judicial power to try cases and the POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, it
judiciary is SEC. 6, ART. 8 which provides that the Supreme Court shall
refers to the power of the courts of law to test the validity of executive
have administrative supervision over the courts and the personnel thereof.
and/or legislative acts if they are in conformity with the Constitution. It is
So again, only the Supreme Court can remove employees in the judiciary.
to see whether or not there amounts a grave abuse of discretion or excess
The case in point is the case of In the matter of the petition by the
in jurisdiction in the other branches of the government.
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism for them to be furnished
copies of the SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of So, it consists of adjudicative power, the power to try cases and power
the members of the Court of Appeals. They were denied by the members of judicial review. There’s no need to discuss the powers of judicial
of CA so they elevated the matter to the SC to let them be furnished review coz we have covered that in the start of our classes. So for our
copies of the SALN of the members of the CA but the SC said that no finals, just skip the topic of judicial review.
other agency or even office of the government can order judges and
members of CA or other lower courts to release a copy of their SALN, So, let’s talk about the ADJUDICATIVE POWER of the Supreme Court
only the SC. So, sila-sila ra. So, walay maka-buot. That is pursuant to the and other courts of law:
power vested on the Supreme Court on Sec. 6, Art. 8 that it is only the
Supreme Court who has supervision over the employees and personnel of You take note that the adjudicative powers of the Supreme Court are more
the judiciary thereof. Is that clear? or less enumerated under SEC. 5, ART. 8 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION. SEC. 5, PAR. 1 OF ART. 8 mentions about the
So now, let’s discuss the powers of the Supreme Court. What are the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Original in a sense that the
powers vested by the Constitution on the Supreme Court? cases mentioned under sec. 5, par. 1 of art. 8 be filed at the first instance
before the Supreme Court. So, diritso na ug file sa Supreme Court without
Well, JUDICIAL POWER is defined under SEC. 1, PAR. 2, ART. 8 the need of filing them first in the lower courts. That’s why it is stated
which it provides that it is the duty of the courts of law… there, “original jurisdiction”. So under sec. 5, par. 1 or art. 8, the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction over all cases affecting ambassadors,
(6 o’clock prayer)
public ministers or consuls, over petitions for certiorari, mandamus,
quo warranto and habeas corpus.

34
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

Unsa man ning CERTIORARI? This is governed by Rule 65, whether or lower courts can be reviewed on appeal for certitiorari before the Supreme
not there is abuse of discretion by a tribunal or a lower court. Court. So it states there that the SC may review, revise, reverse or modify
PROHIBITION, that is to prohibit the performance of an act that is the decisions of the lower courts on appeal of certiorari or it may provide
deemed to be illegal. That is also governed by Rule 65, Rules of final judgment over the decisions of the lower courts over the following
Procedure of the Rules of Court. Mandamus is also governed by Rule 65 cases:
of the Rules of Court, it is to compel the performance of an act which an
officer is duty bound to perform. Quo warranto is governed by Rule 68, 1. The validity, constitutionality or legality of any treaty,
it is a case involving positions, positions in the public office, the petitioner international agreement or law, decrees, proclamations,
pleads the rightful occupant in a public office. Habeas Corpus, we ordinances, circulations, provisions which is in question.
discussed it in relation to the powers of the President under sec. 18, art. 7,
You remember the case of Ynot v. IAC wherein the Supreme Court said
this is a petition directed towards releasing the body detained by an
that lower courts may exercise the power of judicial review, and their
authority or another person for that matter. It is governed by Rule 102 of
decisions may still be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the exercise of
the Rules of Court.
its appellate jurisdiction which is provided under Sec. 5, Par. 2 or Art. 8.
You take note however that as stated under par. 1, sec. 5, art. 8 that the
2. Cases which involves the validity of any tax, penalty imposed
jurisdiction of the SC over these cases is set to be original and these cases
therein which is in question
may be filed at the first instance under the SC. But the jurisdiction of the
3. Cases where jurisdiction of the lower courts is in question
SC mentioned therein may be original but not exclusive. Original in a
4. Criminal cases which penalty imposed therein is reclusion
sense that they may be filed directly or at the first instance before the SC
perpetua or higher
but not exclusive in the sense that the jurisdiction of the SC over these
cases is concurrent with that of the CA or even with the RTC. So RTCs However, you take note that in one case, in the case of PP v. Matteo, July
may entertain petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus among 7, 2004, the SC said that where the penalty wherefore is reclusion
others. And observing the hierarchy of courts, if the issues are not of perpetua or death, it should be first reviewed by the Court of Appeals.
transcendental importance, it should be filed first before the RTC, but if
ang issue is of transcendental importance like in the case of IBP v. For example to declare a law invalid it needs 5, for example 8, ang tunga
Zamora, then it can be filed directly before the SC. So again, what is tie vote 4-4 where that happens under section 5 of rule 56 the or where the
important to take note is that while the Supreme Court has original required vote is obtain the petition would be dismiss… you can file a
jurisdiction over the cases mentioned under par. 1, sec. 5, art. 8, it is not motion for reconsideration of course but if the case is an appealed case
however exclusive. It is concurrent with the CA and the RTC.
(inaudible words) jurisdiction of the SC then if there is a tie vote or where
SEC. 5, PAR. 2, ART. 8 mentions about the APPELLATE the required vote is not obtain then the assailed jurisdiction have to be
JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court. Sec. 5, par. 1, art. 8 talks about affirm, after months sa decision but if it is a criminal case and the of
appellate jurisdiction in a sense that in the cases mentioned therein, they course the accused filed an appeal and the required vote is not obtain tie
should be filed first before the lower courts, and that the decisions of the for example then it should be resolve in favor of the acquittal. So if the

35
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

required vote is not obtain or if it is a tie and the case was a criminal case (inaudible words) consultation 1st before writing of the opinion. But in
the ruling is for the acquittal of the accused. actual practice(inaudible words) the opinion is drafted then it will be
granted? to all members. But for them that’s already a consultation.
So then there are now 3 instances in which the case would have to be Consultation does not make actual meeting its enough that everybody is
decided by the SC en banc. Cases involving the validity of a law, treaty given the chance to read 1st the draft decision (inaudible words) the
among others or the (inaudible words) would call for the reversal of ponente perhaps may want to write his dissenting opinion but there is
previous doctrine of Law enunciated by the SC en banc or where the already consultation.
required votes is not obtain. The fourth one is where the case would
involve (inaudible words) side of judges of the lower court under section (There’s a Q, by Cid and Mali cant understand d words.)
11 it should be decided by the SC so there are actually 4 instances where
the case should be decided by the SC en banc. Then we have a requirement under section 14 such requirements applies
not just to the SC but also to all courts in that the decision must
And then you take note that when coming up with a decision on a distinctively administer the facts and issue as well as the law on which the
particular case section 13 article 8 mandates that there should be a decision is based. This is important. That is for the guidance of the parties
consultation 1st by and among the members of the SC or (inaudible words) on how the decision was arrived at. So this requirement that the facts of
before a case is referred to a particular ponencia or ponente for the writing the case and the law must be distinctively set forth to discuss in the
of the opinion of the court. Unsa mn petition e deny or e grant before the decision would be to (inaudible words) the litigants as well as lawyers on
case is assign to a particular person for the writing of the opinion of the how the decision was arrived at. And this is advisable also or this is
court. If one dissents from the opinion of the ponencia then he may want important so that in the effect that one wishes to appeal then he can make
to write his dissenting opinion. Well if one dissents his own opinion he the necessary assignments of errors. (Bisaya nah discussion) so whereas if
may or may not write his dissenting opinion but of course for (inaudible the facts and the laws are stated in the decision then the appellant can cite
words) purposes he has to write his or it is advisable for him to write his that particular decision which is or part of the decision which is
dissenting opinion. If one wants to register his concurring opinion but on erroneous. So there is this the requirement that the decision must state the
another ground, then he has to write his own concurring opinion. Or fact of the case as well as the law invoke or applicable laws. But how are
perhaps another separate opinion citing other grounds for coming up with we going to judge the validity of the so called minute resolution? One
a decision this is similar to the opinion of the majority or the ponencia page resolution? normally issued by appellate court like court of appeals
then he may write his separate opinion but its not required what is and the SC. Kini? RTC extensive ilang decision taas gyud nah (sounds
important or what is required there should be consultation 1st, in fact the ganyan xa bisaya guys sorry) facts of the case evidence adduce by the
CJ has to issue a certification towards the premise that the decision was parties then the decision of the court. But sometimes if you file a petition
reach after a consultation of the members of the SC but in NLRC for review to the CA or the SC makareceive ka lng ug one page

36
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

resolution. That is what is known as minute resolution. Yes stating therein you dugay kaayu. Again Atty. talks about a case … (bisaya lahat   
essence that after a review and evaluation petition for review this courts   ---more of jokes xa mga moments nila ni atty T.  ..)
finds that (inaudible words) reasons to the findings of the lower courts or
the court finds no abuse of discretion was committed on the part of the So again going back to our discussion the period 24 14 and 3 well it is
lower courts the petition then is hereby dismiss. Would that satisfy the considered now mandatory but even if the period was already expired the
requirement under section 14 article 8? That the decision must reset the courts could still render their decision but they have to come up with a
facts of the law involve. …(bisaya discussion) bereft of any merit devoid valid explanation otherwise judges or the justices concerned would be
of any legal and factual basis would that satisfy the requirement? The held administratively liable in fact naay mga judges karon sa ato wah na
answer is YES in a long line of cases according to the SC minute dawa ??? because the SC now conducted a holding of the cases
resolution like this is already compliant of section 14 article 8 because (inaudible words) kung dugay the penalty impose is their salaries would
when the minute resolution says that the petition bereft of merit that says not be release until the disposition of the cases.
it all. (bisaya discussion) so my advice is if you’re having a case and So that basically ends our discussion. 
you’re filing a petition especially with the SC unya maka one page kai?
nah? denied imung petition ug (bisaya xa tos mabilis pgkabigkas ni atty.) First if you take a look at Section 5 Par 2 Sub 4, it would appear that in
before that happens if you’re a lawyer to the petitioner you collect your criminal cases where the penalty is reclusion perpetua or death should be
atty. fees 1st . Atty. talks about a case he had before… (bisaya lahat   done by the SC but the SC nang hunaw ayaw sa, it should be reviewed
   ---more of jokes xa..) first by the COA such that an amendment was introduced to Sec 3 Par B
of Rule 122 of the SC provided to the end that for the penalty impose is
And then you take note of the requirement under section 15 article 8 death then intermediate review should first be conducted by the COA
regarding the period for rendition of decision. For the SC the period given before the SC. This is pursuant to the ruling of SC to the case of PP vs
is 24 mo’s for other collegiate courts like sandigan bayan CA the decision Mattew? Personally I don’t have objection to this kind of review. Because
must be rendered within 12 mo’s for other lower courts 3 mo’s and these the convicted person have two chances: 1. COA 2. SC. Where as kung
periods will have to reckoned from the date that the case is submitted for diretso sa SC usa ray imo chance. Thus, it is more favorable to the accuse.
decision. A case is submitted for decision if all the pleading are already
filed. So as soon as the same is done then that’s the time that you compute
the format period so taas ang SC 24 mo’s 12 mo’s for the court of appeals
Then another case which falls under the affiliate jurisdiction of SC is
3 mo’s for the lower courts. But then we have a similar provision in the
when the case involves impute questions of law, so this can be reviewed
1973 constitution in one case marcelino vs cruz the SC said that those
by the SC under Rule 45 of the rules of court, otherwise if the issue
periods are not really mandatory but merely directory but cruz on the
involve is a mixture of fact and law then the review must be done by the
opinion now it is considered mandatory but its hardly followed. I’ll tell

37
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

COA and not by the SC. Remember again that the COA cannot deprive SC, writ of habeas data promulgated by the SC. Pursuant to it’s rule
the SC of its jurisdiction over the cases mentioned under SEC 5, 1 and 2 making powers the SC can prescribe rules governing practice and then
of Article 8 as a limitation of the power of Congress to apportion the admission to the bar, admission to the practice of law and even procedures
jurisdiction of the courts. for the aid of the war litigants. This can be done pursuant to the rule
making power of the SC but there are limitations in that the rules
promulgated must provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure
So are these all the powers granted to the SC? The power to adjudicate and it should not diminish, increase or modify substantive right, but I
cases and power to judicial review? Daghan pa kaayo. have an issue with that because there is this circular issued by the SC
which has the effect of decriminalizing Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
1. Sec 11, Art 8 – the power to discipline and dismiss Because under this circular the judges of the lower courts mandated to
judges of the lower courts. more or less refrain from imposing imprisonment as penalty, as much as
2. Under Sec 17, Art 6 – three justices of the SC would sit possible what should be impose is only a payment of civil indemnity and
as members of the Senate electro tribunal or House of fine. Exempt if the offend there is a recidivist. So for me that amounts to a
reps electro tribunal. judicial legislation amending it. But the SC justified this pursuant to the
3. Sec 4, Art 7 – where the justices of the SC would act as rule making power but in the limitation it should not diminish, increase or
the adjudicators in an election contest involving the modify substantive right. But even if someone questions that the SC will
President and the Vice-president. They would act as affirm the validity of that circular.
members of the PEC or the Presidential electro tribunal.
4. Sec 3, Par 6 of Art 11 – authorizing the Chief justice of
the SC to act as the presiding officer in impeachment
cases involving the president of the parties. Then under the Non-adjudicative power, Sec 5 Par 3 which impowers the
5. Administrative supervision – it has the power to appoint SC to transfer or temporary assign judges to other stations upon
all personnel of the judiciary, officers and personnel of (dijudmaklaru) service provided that such designation to other station
the judiciary pursuant to Sec 5 Par 6 of Art 8. should have the concept of the judge concern. Dili pwde masubraan. The
SC also has the power to transfer the venue of the trial of the cases. Take
So other than to adjudicate cases, power of judicial review SC has still note: that in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional, such that the trial of
have many powers specially rule making power provided for under Sec 5 the case should be held in the place where the offense is committed. But
Par 5 of Art 8, then the SC may provide rules for the protection and under Sec 5 Par 4 the SC can order a transfer of the venue of the trial, that
enforcement of constitutional rights, that’s why we have writ of is to prevent miscarriage of justice specially if the witnesses are afraid to
amparo(rules governing forced disappearances) that is promulgated by the come out. Mahaldok sila. Like the case of Espiral? Katong the killing of a

38
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FINAL EXAM NOTES

radio announcer in Pagadian the trail of the case was transfer here in Cebu
City because the witnesses of that case were afraid to come out because
the accuse there was a politician. The case of Archibal, the case was in In the 1935 constitution, to declare a law as invalid what is needed is 2/3
Argao but the trial was transferred here in Cebu City. The Case of votes of the members of the SC. Under 1973, 10 votes but now, it is the
Ampatuan, the offense was committed in Maguindanao but the trial was majority vote of those who actually took part of the deliberation and
in Manila to prevent miscarriage of justice. So in other words the SC has actually voted there on. And what is the majority of 15, it’s only 8 and
numerous powers, not necessarily adjudicative in character. what is majority of 5. So the vote of 5 is enough to declare a law invalid.
That’s if there is a corrum of 8 and vote of 5, it can declare a law invalid.

Now in decided cases, what procedure should be observed by the SC? We

mentioned that the SC has original jurisdiction over the cases in Sec 5 par Cases also which would fall for the reversal or over turning of a doctrine
1 as well as appellate cases mentioned Sec 5 par 2, but how should the SC of law enunciated by the SC en banc or division there of would have to be
decide these cases? There will be a trial. The cases will have to be based decided by the SC en banc. Then all other cases can be decided by the
on what is submitted by the parties. But how should the voted be done division of the SC where the required vote is the majority vote of those
when there are 15 justices of the SC? At present the SC has 3 divisions who took part of the deliberation of the case and actually voted there on
compose of 5 justices in each division. So how should the voting be but in no case without the concurrence of at least 3 members of the SC. So
conducted? That case should be decided by the SC en banc? En banc are now we have 3 divisions compose of 5 justices of SC, so the requirement
cases that should be decided by the SC as a whole, which the constitution is that even if the case is comprisable by a division of the SC, there is a
mandate to be decided by the SC en banc? The Rule: that is answered required nullity of votes of at least 3 members there of, otherwise if that
under Sec 4 par 2 of art 8, provides that cases involving the required votes is not obtain the case will have to be elevated to the SC en
constitutionality of a treaty, international administrative agreement, law as banc. Kung di ma decide.dan and short sa voting, corrum of 4 devided but
well as presidential decrees, proclamation orders, instructions, ordinances what is required is at least concurrence of three, so when that happens
and others would have to be decided by the SC en banc and the voting where there is no nullity of three votes in a division then the case will
required is the majority of those who are actually took part in the have to be decided by the SC en banc.
deliberation of the case and who actually voted there on. So cases where
what is at issue is the validity of the treaty, international agreement, or law
among others should be decided by the SC en banc. Take note: The
required vote is majority of those actually took part of the deliberation of
the case and actually voted there on.

39