Pormento v. Estrada Private respondent was not elected President the second time he ran.

Since

Qualification the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase any reelection will be

premised on a persons second (whether immediate or not) election as

Facts: President, there is no case or controversy to be resolved in this case. No live

conflict of legal rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete, real or

Estrada was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines in the May substantial controversy that touches on the legal relations of parties having

1998 elections. He sought the presidency again in the May 2010 elections. adverse legal interests. No specific relief may conclusively be decreed upon

Pormento opposed Estrada’s candidacy and filed a petition for by this Court in this case that will benefit any of the parties herein. As such, one

disqualification. COMELEC (Division) denied his petition as well as his of the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review, the

subsequent Motion for Reconsideration (En Banc). Pormento then filed the existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking in this case.

present petition for certiorari before the Court. In the meantime, Estrada was

able to participate as a candidate for President in the May 10, 2010 elections As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies.The

where he garnered the second highest number of votes. Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or

to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the
Issue: thing in issue in the case before it. In other words, when a case is moot, it

becomes non-justiciable.

Is Estrada disqualified to run for presidency in the May 2010 elections in view of

the prohibition in the Constitution which states that: "[t]he President shall not An action is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable

be eligible for any reelection? controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead or

when the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, one is not
Held:
entitled to judicial intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again

between the parties. There is nothing for the court to resolve as the
determination thereof has been overtaken by subsequent events.
Assuming an actual case or controversy existed prior to the proclamation of a On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and

President who has been duly elected in the May 10, 2010 elections, the same joined the crowd at EDSA Shrine. Estrada called for a snap presidential

is no longer true today. Following the results of that elections, private election to be held concurrently with congressional and local elections on

respondent was not elected President for the second time. Thus, any May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this election. On January 20, SC

discussion of his reelection will simply be hypothetical and speculative. It will declared that the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada

serve no useful or practical purpose. “constructively resigned his post”. At noon, Arroyo took her oath of office in

the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada and his

Estrada v. Arroyo family later left Malacañang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for

Vacancy, Temporary Disability prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought to enjoin the respondent

Ombudsman from “conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against

FACTS: him not until his term as president ends. He also prayed for judgment

It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving “confirming Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of the Republic

bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and other forms of corruption were made of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office.

against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On November 13,

2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on December 7, impeachment ISSUE(S):

proceedings were begun in the Senate during which more serious allegations 1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.

of graft and corruption against Estrada were made and were only stopped 2. WoN Estrada resigned as President.

on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President, 3. WoN Arroyo is only an acting President.

succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, 4. WoN the President enjoys immunity from suit.

the impeachment trial was thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution 5. WoN the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial

panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned after casting his publicity.

vote against Estrada.

RULING:

The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for

1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987

be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII, and the allocation of

full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive governmental powers under Sec 11 of Art VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling

branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct

wisdom, not legality of a particular measure." calibration of the right of petitioner against prejudicial publicity.

Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II: 2. Elements of valid resignation: (a)an intent to resign and (b) acts of

EDSA I EDSA II relinquishment. Both were present when President Estrada left the Palace.

exercise of people power of freedom of Totality of prior contemporaneous posterior facts and circumstantial

speech and freedom of assemblyto evidence— bearing material relevant issues—President Estrada is deemed to

exercise of the people power of petition the government for redress of have resigned— constructive resignation.

revolution which overthrew the grievances which only affected the SC declared that the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted

whole government. office of the President. as confirmed by his leaving Malacañan Palace. In the press release

extra constitutional and the containing his final statement:

legitimacy of the new 1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;

government that resulted from it intra constitutional and the resignation 2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in

cannot be the subject of judicial of the sitting President that it caused and order to begin the healing process (he did not say that he was leaving due to

review the succession of the Vice President as any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency as

President are subject to judicial review. soon as the disability disappears);

presented a political question; involves legal questions. 3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them
as President (without doubt referring to the past opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come in 4. The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character. They involve

the same service of the country; plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the imagination

5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be

national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity. covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. He

Intent to resign—must be accompanied by act of relinquishment—act or cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit

omission before, during and after January 20, 2001. criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. The

rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the

3. The Congress passed House Resolution No. 176 expressly stating its support officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as

to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines any trespasser.

and subsequently passed H.R. 178 confirms the nomination of Teofisto T.

Guingona Jr. As Vice President. Senate passed HR No. 83 declaring the 5. No. Case law will tell us that a right to a fair trial and the free press are

Impeachment Courts as Functius Officio and has been terminated. It is clear is incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not use the jury system, the

that both houses of Congress recognized Arroyo as the President. Implicitly judge, who is a learned and legally enlightened individual, cannot be easily

clear in that recognition is the premise that the inability of Estrada is no longer manipulated by mere publicity. The Court also said that Estrada did not

temporary as the Congress has clearly rejected his claim of inability. present enough evidence to show that the publicity given the trial has

The Court therefore cannot exercise its judicial power for this is political in influenced the judge so as to render the judge unable to perform. Finally, the

nature and addressed solely to Congress by constitutional fiat. In fine, even if Court said that the cases against Estrada were still undergoing preliminary

Estrada can prove that he did not resign, still, he cannot successfully claim investigation, so the publicity of the case would really have no permanent

that he is a President on leave on the ground that he is merely unable to effect on the judge and that the prosecutor should be more concerned with

govern temporarily. That claim has been laid to rest by Congress and the justice and less with prosecution.

decision that Arroyo is the de jure, president made by a co-equal branch of

government cannot be reviewed by this Court. Civil Liberty Union v. Exec sec.

Sec of Justice in bar council

 functions of their office, the citation of Cabinet members (then called Ministers)

In July 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 as examples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid

which allowed members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant down for all appointive officials should be considered as mere personal

secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their opinions which cannot override the constitution’s manifest intent and the

primary positions subject to limitations set therein. The Civil Liberties Union (CLU) people’s understanding thereof.

assailed this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional. The constitutionality

In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation to Sec 7, par. (2),
of EO 284 is being challenged by CLU on the principal submission that it adds
Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 is unconstitutional. Ostensibly
exceptions to Sec 13, Article 7 of the Constitution.
restricting the number of positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or

assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary position to not more
CLU avers that by virtue of the phrase “unless otherwise provided in this
than 2 positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284
Constitution“, the only exceptions against holding any other office or
actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct
employment in Government are those provided in the Constitution, namely: (i)
contravention of the express mandate of Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Sec
prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987
3, par. (2), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of
Constitution itself.
the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8.
Marcos v. Manglapus
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional.
Executive Power [1/3]
HELD: No, it is unconstitutional. It is clear that the 1987 Constitution seeks to

prohibit the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies Facts:

or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in

Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via
the government, except in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and
the non-violent “people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos,
as above clarified with respect to posts held without additional compensation
in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But
in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary
President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation
of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the

various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, country. He also questioned the claim of the President that the decision was

has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. made in the interest of national security, public safety and health. Petitioner

also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction.

Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following

supervening events: According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty,

property without due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders
that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to Section 6,
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.

3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of

Issue:
a Lebanese arms dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution,
4. Honasan’s failed coup
the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

5. Communist insurgency movements 2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of

6. secessionist movements in Mindanao discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined

that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to
7. devastated economy because of
national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.
8. accumulated foreign debt
Decision:
9. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the
Ratio:
respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the

implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from returning in Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers.
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the
executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.” However, matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of

it does not define what is meant by “executive power” although in the same the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty

article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that

power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader

power to execute the laws, the appointing power to grant reprieves, discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be

commutations and pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution granted or denied.

outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has
For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is whether or not
residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include
there exist factual basis for the President to conclude that it was in the
the power to protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to
national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven
protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II,
that there are factual bases in her decision. The supervening events that
Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore
happened before her decision are factual. The President must take
Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do anything which is not forbidden
preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of
in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary
the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.
powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president

has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day Fernan, Concurring

operation of the State. 1. The president’s power is not fixed. Limits would depend on the

The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending imperatives of events and not on abstract theories of law. We are undergoing

on the circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to a critical time and the current problem can only be answerable by the

the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional President.

provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to 2. Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses would pose a clear & present
certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated danger. Thus, it’s the executive’s responsibility & obligation to prevent a grave
situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a & serious threat to its safety from arising.
3. We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, safety & our political & 4. No proof that Marcos’ return would endanger national security or public

economic gains to give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the country. Compassion safety. Fears are speculative & military admits that it’s under control. Filipinos

must give way to the other state interests. would know how to handle Marcos’ return.

Cruz, Dissenting Padilla, Dissenting

1. As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ right to return, live & die in his own Sarmiento, Dissenting

country. It is a right guaranteed by the Consti to all individuals, whether patriot,

1. President’s determination that Marcos’ return would threaten national
homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc.
security should be agreed upon by the court. Such threat must be clear &

2. Military representatives failed to show that Marcos’ return would pose a present.
threat to national security. Fears were mere conjectures.
DENR v. DENR region 12 employees
3. Residual powers – but the executive’s powers were outlined to limit her
Executive Power [2/3]
powers & not expand.
FACTS:
Paras, Dissenting
DENR Reg 12 Employees filed a petition for nullity of the memorandum order

1. AFP has failed to prove danger which would allow State to impair issued by the Regional Exec. Director of DENR, directing the immediate

Marcos’ right to return to the Philippines. . transfer of the DENR 12 Regional Offices from Cotabato to Koronadal

City. The memorandum was issued pursuant to DENR Executive Order issued
2. Family can be put under house arrest & in the event that one dies,
by the DENR Secretary.
he/she should be buried w/in 10 days.

3. Untenable that without a legislation, right to travel is absolute & state is Issue:
powerless to restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the state to restrict this right if Whether or not DENR Secretary has the authority to reorganize the DENR
national security, public safety/health demands that such be restricted. It Region 12 Office.
can’t be absolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t be arbitrary & irrational.
RULING: The qualified political agency doctrine, all executive and

administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, and

the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated

in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the

Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. It is

corollary to the control power of the President as provided for under Art. VII

Sec. 17 of the 1987 Constitution: "The President shall have control of all the

executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws

be faithfully executed."

In the case at bar, the DENR Secretary can validly reorganize the DENR by

ordering the transfer of the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to

Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR

Secretary, as an alter ego, is presumed to be the acts of the President for the

latter had not expressly repudiated the same.