consti case summary

8/13/2019 consti Case Summary

1/41

CASE (ArticleVI: The

LegislativeDepartment)

MAIN POINT ACTS ISS!E "ELD

Section 27CI# v$ CTA

Section 42 of house bill 17839 which became RA6110 imposed a caterers ta! on "ariousoperators of restaurants# $resident %arcoshowe"er& "etoed the portion of Section 42 whichimposed a 20' caterers ta! on restaurantsoperated b( hotels& motels& and rest houses#$ri"ate respondent& %anila )olf and *ountr(club& claims that the assessment of petitioners tolet them pa( the imposed ta!es is without basisbecause of the "eto done b( the $resident#

+hether or notthe "eto was"alid

,es& the "eto was "alid# An item in a re"enue billdoes not refer to an entire section imposin- aparticular .ind of ta!& but rather to the sub/ect ofta! and the ta! rate#

Section 27%&lina&Electr&nics v$Valencia

,

Section 27(par$ ')&nales v$Macaraig

n 16 5ecember 1988& *on-ress passed ouseill 19186& or the )eneral Appropriations ill forthe iscal ,ear 1989# As passed& it eliminated ordecreased certain items included in the proposedbud-et submitted b( the $resident# $ursuant tothe constitutional pro"ision on the passa-e ofbills& *on-ress presented the said ill to the$resident for consideration and appro"al# n 295ecember 1988& the $resident si-ned the ill intolaw& and declared the same to ha"e become RA6688# n the process& se"en Special $ro"isionsand Section & a )eneral $ro"ision:& were"etoed# Senator ;eptali )on 1 the$residents line?"eto power as re-ardsappropriation bills is limited to item@s and doesnot co"er pro"ision@s therefore& she e!ceededher authorit( when she "etoed Section ,89 and Section 16 , 90 which are pro"ision2 when the $resident ob/ects to a pro"ision ofan appropriation bill& she cannot e!ercise theitem?"eto power but should "eto the entire bill 3the item?"eto power does not carr( with it the

power to stri.e out conditions or restrictions forthat would be le-islation& in "iolation of thedoctrine of separation of powers and 4 the

+; the$residente!ceeded theitem?"etopoweraccorded b(the*onstitution@+; the$resident hasthe power to"etoBpro"isions ofanAppropriationsill#

S* ruled that *on-ress cannot include in a-eneral appropriations bill matters that should bemore properl( enacted in separate le-islation&and if it does that& the inappropriate pro"isionsinserted b( it must be treated as Citem&: whichcan be "etoed b( the $resident in the e!ercise ofhis item?"eto power# Dhe S* went one stepfurther and rules that e"en assumin- ar-uendothat Cpro"isions: are be(ond the e!ecuti"e powerto "eto& and Section , 89 and Section 16, 90 were not Cpro"isions: in the bud-etar(sense of the term& the( are Cinappropriatepro"isions: that should be treated as Citems: forthe purpose of the $residents "eto power#


2/41

power of au-mentation in Article E& Section 2FG of the 1987 *onstitution& has to be pro"idedfor b( law and& therefore& *on-ress is also "ested

with the prero-ati"e to impose restrictions on thee!ercise of that power#

Section 27(par$ ')Philc&nsa v$Enri*+e

An Act Appropriatin- unds for the peration ofthe )o"ernment of the $hilippines from Hanuar( 1to 5ecember 1&1994& and for other $urposes wasappro"ed b( the $resident and "etoed some ofthe pro"isions# $etitioners contest theconstitutionalit( of the impoundment imposed b(the $resident in the implementation of certainappropriations for the *A)I the pa(ment ofseparation benefits#

+; theimpoundmentof the presidentis constitutionaland "alidJ

Dhe president did not "eto the pro"ision but saidinstead his "eto messa-e that theimplementation of the pro"ision would be sub/ectto his appro"al ta.in- into consideration thepeace and order situation# Dhe president /ustifiedhis impoundment on the pro"ision on the basishe is the commander in chief# Dhe court found inthe doctrine on inappropriate pro"ision a w( outof a ha"in- to decide whether impoundment wasle-al# Eeto "alid

Section 27(par$ ')%eng&n v$Dril&n

$etitioners are retired /ustices of the Supreme*ourt and *ourt of Appeals who are currentl(recei"in- pensions under RA 910 as amended b(RA 1797# $resident %arcos issued a decreerepealin- section 3?A of RA 1797 whichauthori


3/41

T&lentin& v$Secretar- &.inance

barter or e!chan-e of -oods and properties aswell as on the sale or e!chan-e of ser"ices# RA7716 see.s to widen the ta! base of the e!istin-EAD s(stem and enhance its administration b(amendin- the ;ational nternal Re"enue *ode#Dhere are "arious suits challen-in- theconstitutionalit( of RA 7716 on "arious -rounds#ne contention is that RA 7716 did not ori-inatee!clusi"el( in the ouse of Representati"es asre=uired b( Art# E& Sec# 24 of the *onstitution&because it is in fact the result of the consolidationof 2 distinct bills& # ;o# 11197 and S# ;o# 1630#Dhere is also a contention that S# ;o# 1630 didnot pass 3 readin-s as re=uired b( the*onstitution#

RA 7716"iolated Art# E&Section 24 andArt# E& Section262 of the*onstitution

the re"enue bill and not to the re"enue law# t issufficient that the ouse of Representati"esinitiated the passa-e of the bill which ma(under-o e!tensi"e chan-es in the Senate#S# ;o# 1630& ha"in- been certified as ur-ent b(the $resident need not meet the re=uirement notonl( of printin- but also of readin- the bill onseparate da(s#

Section 28arcia v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

*or( issued M 438 which imposed& in addition toan( other duties& ta!es and char-es imposed b(law on all articles imported into the $hilippines&an additional dut( of ' ad "alorem# Dhisadditional dut( was imposed across the board onall imported articles& includin- crude oil and otheroil products imported into the $hilippines# n1991& M 443 increased the additional dut( to9'# n the same (ear& M 47 was passedreinstatin- the pre"ious ' dut( e!cept thatcrude oil and other oil products continued to beta!ed at 9'# )arcia& a representati"e fromataan& a"ers that M 47 and 478 areunconstitutional for the( "iolate Sec 24 of Art 6 ofthe *onstitution which pro"ides> Allappropriation& re"enue or tariff bills& billsauthori


4/41


5/41

that the 2nd floor was bein- used as residentialand the -round floor was bein- leased to anothercorporation#

corporation# main purpose# howe"er it cannot be said that thelease of the -round floor to another corporation isto be incidental for the accomplishment of themain purpose# therefore the( should not bee!empted from pa(in- ta!es#

Section 28Lla,&c v$ CI#

Sometime in 197& %## Mstate nc#& of acolod*it(& donated 10&000#00 pesos in cash to r#*rispin Rui


6/41

its reli-ious& educational and charitableob/ecti"es# ,%*A earned an income from leasin-out a portion of its premises to small shop ownersand from par.in- fees collected from non?members# Dhe *ommissioner of nternalRe"enue *R issued an assessment fordeficienc( income ta!& deficienc( e!panded

withholdin- ta!es on rentals and professionalfees and deficienc( withholdin- ta! on wa-es#,%*A protested the assessment#

,%*A fromrentals of smallshops andpar.in- fees ise!empt fromta!ation

persuaded# Dhe debates& interpellations ande!pressions of opinion of the framers of the*onstitution re"eal their intent# Hustice ilario5a"ide Hr#& a former constitutional commissioner&stressed durin- the *oncom debate that what ise!empted is not the institution itself thosee!empted from real estate ta!es are lands&buildin-s and impro"ements actuall(& directl( ande!clusi"el( used for reli-ious& charitable oreducational purposes# r# Hoa=uin ernas& aneminent authorit( on the *onstitution and also amember of the *oncom& adhered to the same"iew that the e!emption created b( said pro"isionpertained onl( to propert( ta!es# n his treatise onta!ation& Hustice Hose Eitu- concurs& statin- thatthe ta! e!emption co"ers propert( ta!es onl(#ndeed& the income ta! e!emption claimed b(,%*A finds no basis in Art# E& Sec# 283 of the*onstitution#

,%*A also in"o.es Art# PE& Sec# 43 of the*onstitution claimin- that ,%*A is a non?stoc.&

non?profit educational institution whose re"enuesand assets are used actuall(& directl( ande!clusi"el( for educational purposes so it ise!empt from ta!es on its properties and income#Dhe *ourt reiterates that ,%*A is e!empt fromthe pa(ment of propert( ta!& but not income ta!on the rentals from its propert(# Dhe barealle-ation alone that it is a non?stoc.& non?profiteducational institution is insufficient to /ustif( itse!emption from the pa(ment of income ta!# Lawsallowin- ta! e!emption are construed strictissimi

/uris# ence& for the ,%*A to be -ranted the

e!emption it claims under the aforecitedpro"ision& it must pro"e with substantial e"idencethat> 1# it falls under the classification non?stoc.&non?profit educational institution and 2# theincome it see.s to be e!empted from ta!ation isused actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( foreducational purposes# owe"er& the *ourt notesthat not a scintilla of e"idence was submitted b(,%*A to pro"e that it met the said re=uisites#,%*A is not an educational institution within thepur"iew of Art# PE& Sec# 43 of the *onstitution#Dhe term Ceducational institution&: when used in

laws -rantin- ta! e!emptions& refers to a school&seminar(& colle-e or educational establishment#Dherefore& ,%*A cannot be deemed one of theeducational institutions co"ered b( the said


7/41

constitutional pro"ision# %oreo"er& the *ourtnotes that ,%*A did not submit proof of theproportionate amount of the sub/ect income that

was actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el( used foreducational purposes#

Section 284&hn "a- v$Lim

KD

Section 28S-stems Pl+sC&mp+terC&llege v$Cal&&can Cit-

Dhe -rant of ta! e!emptionrests upon the theor( that it

will benefit the bod( of peopleand not upon the idea oflessenin- the burden ofindi"idual corporate owners#

$etitioner& a non?stoc. and non?profit educationalinstitution& as.ed cit( -o"ernment of *aloocan toe!empt them from ta! for the parcel of landwhich the( rent from sister companies&*onsolidated Assembl( and $air %ana-ementthat was used for educational purposes# Suchre=uest was denied# Dhereafter& the companiesentered into an a-reement where the land wasdonated to the petitioner and a-ain sou-htreconsideration# owe"er& it was denied a-ain onthe -round that the donation was mere farce toe"ade ta! liabilit(#

+as the ta!e!emptionsou-ht properJ

;o# there is no showin- that the parcel of landare Cactuall(& directl(& and e!clusi"el(: usedeither for reli-ious& charitable& or educationalpurposes# ence& ta! e!emption cannot beclaimed#

Section 28L+ng Center v$5+e&n Cit-

Dhe lun- center is a charitable institution withinthe conte!t of 1973 and 1987 constitutions# Dheelements considered in determinin- a charitableinstitution are> the statue creatin- the enterpriseits corporate purposes constitution and b(?laws&methods of administration& nature of actual wor.performed& character of the ser"ices rendered&indefiniteness of the beneficiaries& and the useoccupation of properties# As a -en# principle& acharitable institution doe not lose its character assuch and its e!emption from ta!es simpl(because it deri"es income from pa(in- patients&or recei"es subsidies from -o"ernment and nomone( insures to the pri"ate benefit of the

persons mana-in- or operatin- the institution#

+hether or notthe realproperties ofthe lun- centerare e!emptfrom realpropert( ta!es#

$artl( ;o# Dhose portions of its real propert( thatare leased to pri"ate entities are not e!empt fromactuall(& direct and e!clusi"el( used forcharitable purpose# Inder $5 1823& the lun-center does not en/o( an( propert( ta! e!emptionpri"ile-es for its real properties as well as thebuildin- constructed thereon#Dhe propert( ta! e!emption under Sec# 283&Art# E of the propert( ta!es onl(# Dhis pro"ision

was implanted b( Sec#243 b of RA 7160#whichpro"ides that in order to be entitled to thee!emption& the lun- center must be able to pro"ethat> it is a charitable institution and its realproperties are actuall(& directl( and e!clusi"el(

used for charitable purpose# Accordin-l(& theportions occupied b( the hospital used for itspatients are e!empt from real propert( ta!es

while those leased to pri"ate entities are note!empt from such ta!es#

Section 28PlantersPr&,+cts Incv$ ertiphilC&rp

$etitioner $$ and respondent ertiphil arepri"ate corporations incorporated under $hilippinelaws& both en-a-ed in the importation anddistribution of fertili


8/41

ma.e $$ financiall( "iable# ertiphil remitted tothe ertili


9/41

1990 bud-et# Dhe petition also see.s to restrainthe disbursement for debt ser"ice under the 1990bud-et pursuant to said decrees#

Section 29 1Article E of the*onstitutionJ

made certain b( the le-islati"e parameterspro"ided in the decrees# Dhe M!ecuti"e is not ofunlimited discretion as to the amounts to bedisbursed for debt ser"icin-# Dhe mandate is topa( onl( the principal& interest& ta!es and othernormal ban.in- char-es on the loans& credits orindebtedness& or on the bonds& debentures orsecurit( or other e"idences of indebtedness soldin international mar.ets incurred b( "irtue of thelaw& as and when the( shall become due# ;ouncertaint( arises in e!ecuti"e implementation asthe limit will be the e!act amounts as shown b(the boo.s of the Dreasur(#

Section 29ast&n v$#ep+3licPlanters %an7

Da!ed were le"ied on su-ar production for thepurpose of creatin- the su-ar stabili


10/41

arcia v$COMELEC

the San--unian- a(an of %oron-& ataana-reed to the inclusion of the municipalit( of%oron- as part of the Subic Special MconomicQoneSSMQ in accord with RA no# 7227#$etitioners filed a petition to annul the$amba(an- Kapas(ahan l-# 10& Ser(e1993# nthe said petition& the( set some conditions whichthe( want to be complied with before the( includetheir municipalit( with SSMQ#%unicipalit( of %oron- did not ta.e an( action on

the petition within 30 da(s after its submission&which prompted the petitioners resorted to theirpower of initiati"e under the Local )o"ernment*ode of 1991 whereb( the( started to solicit there=uired number of si-natures to cause therepealof said resolution# *%MLM* en banc resol"ed toden( the petition for local initiati"e on the -round that its sub/ect is Cmerel( a resolution: and not anordinance

the power ofinitiati"e can bee!ercised e"en

whatis=uestioned isonl( aresolution andnot anordinanceJ

"aluable modes of e!pressin- popularso"erei-nt(# $etition is )RA;DM5 and*%MLM* Resolution 93?1623 are A;;ILM5and SMD AS5M# *%MLM* was alsoempowered to enforce and administer all lawsand re-ulationsrelati"e to the conduct of aninitiati"e and referendum#

CASE(Article VII:

TheE1ec+tive

Department)

MAIN POINT ACTS ISS!E "ELD

Section 1Marc&s v$Manglap+s

Dhis case in"ol"es a petition of mandamus andprohibition as.in- the court to order therespondents Secretar( of orei-n Affairs& etc# Doissue a tra"el documents to former $res# %arcosand the immediate members of his famil( and toen/oin the implementation of the $residentOsdecision to bar their return to the $hilippines#$etitioners assert that the ri-ht of the %arcoses to

return in the $hilippines is -uaranteed b( the illof Ri-hts& specificall( Sections 1 and 6# Dhe(contended that $res# A=uino is without power toimpair the libert( of abode of the %arcosesbecause onl( a court ma( do so within the limitsprescribed b( law# ;or the $resident impair theirri-ht to tra"el because no law has authori


11/41

enter oneOs countr( cannot be arbitraril(depri"ed# t would be therefore inappropriate toconstrue the limitations to the ri-ht to return toones countr( in the same conte!t as thosepertainin- to the libert( of abode and the ri-ht totra"el#Dhe ill of ri-hts treats onl( the libert( of abodeand the ri-ht to tra"el& but it is a well considered"iew that the ri-ht to return ma( be considered&as a -enerall( accepted principle of nternational

Law and under our *onstitution as part of the lawof the land#Dhe court held that $resident did not actarbitraril( or with -ra"e abuse of discretion indeterminin- that the return of the ormer $res#%arcos and his famil( poses a serious threat tonational interest and welfare# $resident A=uinohas determined that the destabili


12/41

da(s from receipt of the writ# n their return& therespondents contended that the petition failed tomeet the re=uirement in the Rules on the +rit ofAmparo that claims must be established b(substantial e"idence# Dhe( also mo"ed to ha"e$resident )loria %acapa-al?Arro(o dropped as apart( on account of $residential immunit(# n itsdecision& the RD* ordered the issuance of a +ritof Amparo orderin- the respondents to adisclose where Hames alao is detained or

confined& b to release Hames alao considerin-his unlawful detention since his abduction and cto cease and desist from further inflictin- harmupon his person#

Section 1#&,rig+e v$Macapagal9Arr&-&

Rodri-ue< claims that the militar( ta--ed K%$ asan enem( of the State under the plan anta(La(a& ma.in- its members tar-ets of e!tra/udicial.illin-s and enforced disappearances#

e was abducted b( the militar( and held himcapti"e in a camp that belon-ed to the 17thnfantr( attalion of the $hilippine Arm(# ere& he

was continuousl( interro-ated& beaten& star"ed&and electrocuted to confess that he was amember of the ;ew $eoples Arm( ;$A# e

was also threatened to be .illed if he did not -i"ethe location of the ;$A camp#

5espite all this& he remained silent# 5urin- thelatter part of his detention& he was forced to si-ndifferent documents declarin- that he hadsurrendered to the militar( in an encounter& thathe was ne"er maltreated or tortured& and that he

was a militar( asset -i"in- information about

different indi"iduals who belon-ed to ;$A andthe different ;$A locations#

n the da( of his release& he was -i"en ashower& a new set of clothes& and food which heate alon-side militar( officials# Dhrou-hout theda(s acti"ities& the militar( too. pictures of himbein- well?treated# e was repeatedl( remindednot to disclose to the media his e!perience in thecamp and to sa( that he had surrendered# isfamil( pic.ed him up that afternoon# Dwo 2months after his release& howe"er& he noticed

that he was constantl( bein- followed so heapplied for writs of amparo and habeas dataa-ainst the -o"ernment to protect him from the

+hetherformer$residentArro(o shouldbe dropped asa respondenton the basis ofthe presidential

immunit( fromsuit#

Dhe S* cited the case of Mstrada "# 5esiertoclarif(in- the doctrine that a non?sittin- $residentdoes not en/o( immunit( from suit& e"en for actscommitted durin- the latters tenure# Dhe(emphasi


13/41

"iolation of his ri-ht to life& libert( and securit(#

Amon- the respondents was $resident )loria%acapa-al?Arro(o $)%A& based on thedoctrine of command responsibilit(# Dhe *ourt ofAppeals dismissed the petition with respect toformer $resident Arro(o on account of herpresidential immunit( from suit# Rodri-ueDhe term of office of the Senators elected in the 8%a( 199 election is si! (ears& the first three of

which coincides with the last three (ears of theterm of the $resident elected in the 11 %a( 1992s(nchroni1 Dhe petition is insufficient in form andsubstance2 Dhe petition is filed be(ond the periodspro"ided in Rules 14 and 1 hereof3 Dhe filin- fee is not paid within the periodspro"ided for in these Rules4 Dhe cash deposit& or the first $100&000#00thereof& is not paid within 10 da(s after the filin-

of the protest and Dhe petition or copies thereof and theanne!es thereto filed with the Dribunal are notclearl( le-ible#


21/41

ther -rounds for a motion to dismiss& e#-#& thosepro"ided in the Rules of *ourt which appl( in asuppletor( character& ma( li.ewise be pleaded asaffirmati"e defenses in the answer# After which&the Dribunal ma(& in its discretion& hold apreliminar( hearin- on such -rounds# n sum& ifan election protest ma( be dismissed ontechnical -rounds& then it must be& for adecidedl( stron-er reason& if it has become mootdue to its abandonment b( the $rotestant#

n the case at bar& protestants tenure in theSenate coincides with the term of the Eice?$residenc( 2004?2010& that is the sub/ect of herprotest#n the matter of the alle-ed spurious MR copies&

we a-ree with the protestee that the protestanthad not ade=uatel( and con"incin-l( rebutted thepresumption that as public documents& the*on-ress?retrie"ed MR copies& used for theproclamation of the protestee b( the ;*& areauthentic and dul( e!ecuted in the re-ular courseof official business# Dhe e"idence adduced b(

protestee to show that the supposed securit(features and mar.in-s in the *on-ress?retrie"edMRs and the *%MLM*@;A%RMLs copies aredifferent& did not cate-oricall( establish that the*on-ress?retrie"ed MRs are fa.e and spurious#Do o"ercome the presumption of re-ularit(& theremust be e"idence that is clear& con"incin- andmore than merel( preponderant# Absent suchcon"incin- e"idence& the presumption must beupheld# n fact& the records show that e"en the

witnesses presented b( the protestant testifiedthat the( were able to discern securit( features

and mar.in-s in the *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs#Dhe records also show that witnesses were notmade to e!amine all *on-ress?retrie"ed MRs inma.in- obser"ations relati"e to securit( featuresand mar.in-s& but onl( a sample set thereof wasutili


22/41

out and /oined the rall(in- people in the streets of

%anila# Amidst the pressure& Mrap proposed snap

elections& which he is not to run as a candidate

but to =uell the Cwa"e: a-ainst him# ;e-otiations

were made between Mraps camp and )%As&

and at 12nn of 20 Hanuar( 2001& )%A too. her

oath which was ac.nowled-ed b( both ouses of

*on-ress as well as the international communit(#

Mrap& on the other hand& left %alacanan-#

candidate in the proposed snap election 2 he didnot ob/ect to Sen# $imentels Cdi-nified e!it:proposal and 3 on Mrap sa(in- that he onl( had da(s to a wee. to sta( in the $alace# Also& from

what the court e"entuall( calls his Cresi-nationletter:& Mrap 1 ac.nowled-ed )%As oath?ta.in-as $resident 2 he did not mention an( intent onre?assumin- his position as $resident and& 3 his-ratitude on the letter is on a past opportunit( heser"ed as a $resident#

Section 8L&an&0 et alv$ Macapagal9Arr&-&

$etitioner li"er Lo


23/41

the constitution itself> Sec# 3 Art E and Sec# 8Art# E#

Section 13D&r&mal v$San,igan3a-an

$etitioner& uintin S# 5oromal& former*ommissioner of the $residential *ommission on)ood )o"ernment $*)) filed a %otion touash the information a-ainst him for his"iolation of RA 3019 where respondents contendthat he willfull( and unlawfull( ha"e direct orindirect financial interest in the 5oromal

nternational Dradin- *orporation& an entit( whichtransacted or entered into a business transactionor contract with the 5epartment of Mducation&*ulture and Sports and the ;ational %anpowerand ,outh *ouncil#& since accordin- to him& hehas not si-ned an( document related to it#

+hether or notpetitioners%otion touash is withmeritJ

Dhere is no merit in petitionerOs insistence thatthe information should be =uashed because theSpecial $rosecutor admitted in theSandi-anba(an that he does not possess an(document si-ned and@or submitted to the 5M*Sb( the petitioner after he became a $*))*ommissioner# Dhat admission alle-edl( belies

the a"erment in the information that the petitionerparticipatedO in the business of the 5D* in

which he is prohibited b( the *onstitution or b(law from ha"inan( interest# Sec# 3?h& RA ;o#3019#Dhe petitioner can ri-htfull( bechar-ed ###with ha"in- participated in a business

which act is absolutel( prohibited b( Section 13of Article E of the *onstitution because the5D* remained a famil( corporation in which5oromal has at least an indirect interest#Section 13& Article E of the 1987 *onstitutionpro"ides that the $resident& Eice?$resident& the

members of the *abinet and their deputies orassistants shall not### durin- their tenure##directl( or indirectl(### participate in an(business# Dhe constitutional ban is similar to theprohibition in the *i"il Ser"ice Law $5 ;o# 807&Sec# 36& subpar# 24 that $ursuit of pri"atebusiness ### without the permission re=uired b(*i"il Ser"ice Rules and Re-ulations shall be a-round for disciplinar( action a-ainst an( officeror emplo(ee in the ci"il ser"ice#

Section 13l&res v$

Dril&n

$etitioners =uestion the constitutionalit( of RA7227& appointin- %a(or )ordon as the chairman

and chief e!ecuti"e of the Subic a( %etropolitanAuthorit(# $etitioner ar-ues that no electi"eofficial shall be eli-ible to be appointed to anotherpublic office durin- his term#

+@; RA 7227is considered

to beunconstitutional#

,es& RA 7227 was declared unconstitutional# Dhe*onstitution prohibits a public officer to hold

multiple functions since the( are accorded with apublic office that is a full?time /ob& and to let themfunction without the distraction of other-o"ernmental duties#

Section 13%it&ni& v$ COA

n 1994& petitioner enedicto Mrnesto R# itonio&Hr# was appointed 5irector E of the ureau ofLabor Relations in the 5epartment of Labor andMmplo(ment# As representati"e of the Secretar(of Labor to the $MQA oard& he was recei"in- aper diem for e"er( board meetin- he attendeddurin- the (ears 199 to 1997# After a post auditof the $MQAs disbursement transactions& the

*A disallowed the pa(ment of per diems to %r#itonio pursuant to the Supreme *ourt rulin-declarin- unconstitutional the holdin- of other

+; *Acorrectl(disallowed theper diemsrecei"ed b( thepetitioner forhis attendancein the $MQA

oard of5irectorsmeetin-s as

,es# Dhe petitioner is& indeed& not entitled torecei"e per diem for his board meetin-s sittin- asrepresentati"e of the Secretar( of Labor in theoard of 5irectors of the $MQA#Dhe petitioners presence in the $MQA oardmeetin-s is solel( b( "irtue of his capacit( asrepresentati"e of the Secretar( of Labor# Sincethe Secretar( of Labor is prohibited from

recei"in- compensation for his additional office oremplo(ment& such prohibition li.ewise applies tothe petitioner who sat in the oard onl( in behalf


24/41

offices b( the cabinet members& their deputiesand assistants in addition to their primar( officeand the receipt of compensation therefore& and&to *A %emorandum ;o# 97?038 datedSeptember 19& 1997& implementin- Senate*ommittee Reports ;o# 09#n his motion for reconsideration to the *A& hecontended that the Supreme *ourt modified itsearlier rulin- in the *i"il Liberties Inion case&

which limits the prohibition to *abinet

Secretaries& Indersecretaries and theirAssistants# fficials -i"en the ran. e=ui"alent to aSecretar(& Indersecretar( or Assistant Secretar(and other appointi"e officials below the ran. ofAssistant Secretar( are not co"ered b( theprohibition#e further stated that the $MQA *harter RA7916& enacted four (ears after the *i"il LibertiesInion case became final& authori


25/41

App&intments&. Valen+elaan, Vallarta

%arch 30& 1998 of on# %ateo Ealen


26/41

does not mana-e -o"ernment affairs# A cop( ofthe said M was furnished to the Senate$resident and the ouse Spea.er# owe"er& in5ecember 1926& ;** held its elections and theSenate $resident as well as the ouse Spea.er&notwithstandin- M ;o# 37 and the ob/ection ofthe )o"ernor?)eneral& still elected %iltonSprin-er and four others as oard of 5irectors of;**# Dhereafter& a =uo warranto proceedin- inbehalf of the -o"ernment was filed a-ainst

Sprin-er et al =uestionin- the "alidit( of theirelection into the oard of ;**#

office# Such e!ception can be found in theappointment b( the le-islature of persons to filloffices within the le-islati"e branch T thise!ception is allowable because it does not

wea.en the e!ecuti"e branch#

Section 16%erm+,e v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

;ML

Section 16l&res vs$Dril&n

Dhe appointin- authorit( thatthe con-ress -i"es to the$resident is an e!clusi"eprero-ati"e of the $resident&upon which no limitations ma(be imposed b( the *on-ress#

Dhe constitutionalit( of Sec# 13& par# d& of R#A#7227& otherwise .nown as the ases *on"ersionand 5e"elopment Act of 1992& under whichrespondent %a(or Richard H# )ordon oflon-apo *it( was appointed *hairman and*hief M!ecuti"e fficer of the Subic a(

%etropolitan Authorit( S%A& is challen-ed inthis case# $ara-raph d pro"ides that the$resident shall appoint a professional mana-eras administrator of the Subic Authorit( with acompensation to be determined b( the oardsub/ect to the appro"al of the Secretar( ofud-et& who shall be the e! oficio chairman of theoard and who shall ser"e as the chief e!ecuti"eofficer of the Subic Authorit(# $ro"ided& howe"er&that for the first (ear of its operations from theeffecti"it( of this Act& the ma(or of the *it( oflon-apo shall be appointed as the chairman and

chief e!ecuti"e officer of the Subic Authorit(# neof the contentions of the petitioners is that it"iolates Sec# 16& Art# E& of the *onstitution&

which pro"ides that FtGhe $resident shall # # # #appoint all other officers of the )o"ernment

whose appointments are not otherwise pro"idedfor b( law& and those whom he ma( be authori


27/41

Appointments a"erred that autista cannot ta.eher seat w@o their confirmation# *or(& throu-h theM!ec Sec& filed with the *oA communicationsabout autistas appointment on 14 Han 1989#autista refused to be placed under the *oAsre"iew hence she filed a petition before the S*#n the other hand& %allillin in"o.ed M 163?Astatin- that since *oA refused autistasappointment& autista should be remo"ed# M163?A pro"ides that the tenure of the *hairman

and the *ommissioners of the *R should be atthe pleasure of the $resident#

*oAsconfirmationJ

made with the confirmation of the *oA it followsthat the appointment b( the $resident of the*hairman of the *R is to be made without there"iew or participation of the *oA# Do be moreprecise& the appointment of the *hairman and%embers of the *R is not specificall( pro"idedfor in the *onstitution itself#

Section 16Sarmient& v$Mis&n

$etitioner filed a motion to prohibit respondentfrom performin- his duties as the commissionerof the ureau of *ustoms on the -round thatrespondentOs appointment was not confirmed b(the *ommission on Appointments#

+@; theappointment isconsidered tobe "alid#

,es& it is "alid based on Article E Section 16 ofthe *onstitution& which states that appointmentsmade b( the $resident that re=uires theconfirmation of the *ommission on Appointmentsare those belon-in- to the first -roup such as theAmbassador# Dhe commissioner of the ureauof *ustoms howe"er does not belon- to the first-roup& therefore it does not an(more need theconfirmation of the *ommission on Appointmentsto be "alid#

Section 165+int&s9Delesv$C&mmissi&n&nApp&intments

Dhe petitioner and three others were appointedSectoral Representati"es b( the $residentpursuant to Article E& Section 16& para-raph 2and Article PE& Section 7 of the *onstitution#5ue to the opposition of some con-ressmen?members of the *ommission on Appointments&

who insisted that the respondent *ommissionmust first confirm sectoral representati"es beforethe( could ta.e their oaths and@or assume officeas members of then "iew of this de"elopment& M!ecuti"e Secretar(*atalino %acarai-& Hr# transmitted on April 2&

1988& a letter dated April 11& 1988 of the$resident addressed to the *ommission onAppointments submittin- for confirmation theappointments of the four sectoral representati"es#%eanwhile& petitioner in a letter dated April 22&1988 addressed to Spea.er Ramon E# %itra& Hr#appealed to the ouse of Representati"esalle-in-& amon- others& that since Cno attempt

was made to sub/ect the sectoral representati"esalread( sittin- to the confirmation process& thereis no necessit( for such confirmation& andsub/ection thereto of the present batch would

certainl( be discriminator(:#

+; the*onstitutionre=uire theappointment ofsectoralrepresentati"esto the ouse ofRepresentati"es to beconfirmed b(the*ommission on

AppointmentsJ

;o# Dhe power to appoint is fundamentall(e!ecuti"e or presidential in character# Since theseats reser"ed for sectoral representati"es inpara-raph 2& Section & Art# E ma( be filled b(appointment b( the $resident b( e!presspro"ision of Section 7& Art# PE of the*onstitution& it is undubitable that sectoralrepresentati"es to the ouse of Representati"esare amon- the Cother officers whoseappointments are "ested in the $resident in this*onstitution&: referred to in the first sentence ofSection 16& Art# E whose appointments are?

sub/ect to confirmation b( the *ommission onAppointments Sarmiento "# %ison& supra#$etitioners appointment was furthermore madepursuant to Art# E& Section 16& para-raph 2

which -i"es the $resident :the power to ma.eappointments durin- the recess of the *on-ress&

whether "oluntar( or compulsor(& but suchappointments shall be effecti"e onl( untildisappro"al b( the *ommission on Appointmentsor until the ne!t ad/ournment of the *on-ress#:Dhe records show that petitioners appointment

was made on April 6& 1988 or while *on-ress

was in recess %arch 26& 1988 to April 17& 1988hence& the reference to the said para-raph 2 ofSection 16& Art# E in the appointment e!tended


28/41

to her# mplicit in the in"ocation of para-raph 2&Section 16& Art# E as authorit( for theappointment of petitioner is& the reco-nition b(the $resident as appointin- authorit(& thatpetitioners appointment re=uires confirmation b(the *ommission on Appointments# As a matter offact& the $resident had e!pressl( submittedpetitioners appointment for confirmation b( the*ommission on Appointments# *onsiderin- that*on-ress had ad/ourned without respondent

*ommission on Appointments ha"in- acted onpetitioners appointment& saidappointment@nomination had become moot andacademic pursuant to Section 23 of the Rules ofrespondent *ommission and Cunless resubmittedshall not a-ain be considered b( the*ommission#:

Section 16Cal,er&n v$Carale

Dhis is a petition for prohibition =uestions theconstitutionalit( and le-alit( of permanentappointments e!tended b( $resident to *hairmanand %embers of ;LR* without submittin- thesame to the *ommission on Appointments for

confirmation pursuant to Art 21 of the Labor*ode as amended b( RA 671

+hether or notcon-ress ma(re=uire b( lawconfirmation b(the

*ommission ofappointmentse!tended b(the $residentto -o"ernmentofficersadditional tothosee!pressl(mentioned inthe 1stsentence of

Sec# 6 Art# Ewhoseappointmentsre=uireconfirmation b(the*ommission ofAppointments

;o# court ruled that con-ress ma( not e!pand thelist of appointments needin- confirmation## the1st sentence of Sec 16 of those appointmentsre=uire confirmation b( the *ommission ofAppointments is e!clusi"e& addin- that the list

ma( not be e!panded b( statutor( le-islation#

Section 16Manal& v$Sist&a

$etitioner& Hesulito Sisto


29/41

confirmation# Dhe said police officers tool theirath of ffices and assumed their respecti"epositions# Dhereafter& the 5epartment of ud-etand %ana-ement& under the then Secretar(Sal"ador Mnri=ue< & authori


30/41

hand& maintain that the $resident can issue

appointments in an actin- capacit( to department

secretaries without the consent of the

*ommission on Appointments e"en while

*on-ress is in session#

Section 16A3as 8i,a v$Senate &. thePhilippines

;ML

Section 17Lacs&n9MagallanesC&$0 Inc$ vs$4&se Pa&0 et$al$

Dhe power of control hasbeen -i"en to the $residento"er all e!ecuti"e officers#mplicit then is his authorit( to-o o"er& confirm& modif( orre"erse the action ta.en b(his department secretaries#At the case at bar& as theM!ecuti"e Secretar( acts b(authorit( of the $resident& hisdecision is that of the$residents#

n 1932& Hose %a-allanes was a permittee andactual occupant of a 1&103?hectare pasture landsituated in 5a"ao# n 193& %a-allanes cededhis ri-hts and interests to a portion of the abo"epublic land to the plaintiff# n 194& the same

was officiall( released from the forest


31/41

M!ecuti"e Secretar( of the $resident acted with-ra"e abuse of discretion#

whate"er decision the assistant e!ecuti"esecretar( -i"es comes from the $residenthimself#

Section 17Ang9Angc& v$Castill&

Dhe $epsi?*ola *o# re=uested for the withdrawalof $epsi?cola concentrates which were notco"ered b( an( *entral an. release certificate#ts counsels approached *ollector of *ustomsAn-?An-co to secure the immediate release ofthe concentrates& but ad"ised the counsel tosecure the release certificate from the ;o?5ollar

mport ffice# Dhe ;on?5ollar mport ffice wrotea letter to An-?An-co which stated that his officehad no ob/ection to the release of theconcentrates but could not ta.e action on there=uest& as it was not in their /urisdiction# An-?An-co telephoned the Secretar( of inance whoe!pressed his appro"al of the release on thebasis of said certificate# *ollector An-?An-cofinall( released the concentrates# +hen*ommissioner of *ustoms learned of the releasehe filed an administrati"e complaint a-ainst*ollector of *ustoms An-?An-co# or three

(ears& An-?An-co had been dischar-in- theduties of his office# Dhen& M!ecuti"e Secretar(*astillo& b( authorit( of the $resident& renderedhis /ud-ment a-ainst the petitioner#

+; the$resident isempowered toremo"e officersand emplo(eesin the classifiedci"il ser"ice#

Dhe $resident does not ha"e the power toremo"e officers or emplo(ees in the classifiedci"il ser"ice# t is clear that under the presentpro"ision of the *i"il Ser"ice Act of 199& thecase of petitioner comes under the e!clusi"e

/urisdiction of the *ommissioner of *i"il Ser"ice&and ha"in- been depri"ed of the procedure laid

down in connection with the in"esti-ation anddisposition of his case& it ma( be said that he hasbeen depri"ed of due process as -uaranteed b(said law#Dhe $ower of control of the $resident ma(e!tend to the $ower to in"esti-ate& suspend orremo"e officers and emplo(ees who belon- tothe e!ecuti"e department if the( are presidentialappointees but not with re-ard to those officersor emplo(ees who belon- to the classifiedser"ice for as to them that inherent power cannotbe e!ercised# Dhis is in line with the pro"ision of

our *onstitution& which sa(s that the *on-ressma( b( law "est the appointment of the inferiorofficers& in the $resident alone& in the courts& orin heads of department Article E& Section 10F3G& *onstitution# +ith re-ard to these officers

whose appointments are "ested on heads ofdepartments& *on-ress has pro"ided b( law for aprocedure for their remo"al precisel( in "iew ofthis constitutional authorit(# ne such law is the*i"il Ser"ice Act of 199#

Section 17NAMA#CO v$

Arca

Dhe )eneral %ana-er issued Administrati"erder ;o# 137& series of 1960& holdin- Ari"e

-uilt( of the char-es and dismissin- him from theser"ice& for "iolatin- %ana-ement %emorandumrder# Ari"e appealed from the decision of the;A%AR* to the $resident of the $hilippines#then M!ecuti"e Secretar( Ramon A# 5ia


32/41

5irectors remo"in-& suspendin-& or otherwisedisciplinin- an( of its subordinate emplo(ees#

Section 17Dril&n v$ Lim

$ursuant to Section 187 of the Local )o"ernment*ode& the Secretar( of Hustice had& on appeal tohim of four oil companies and a ta!pa(er&declared rdinance ;o# 7794& otherwise .nownas the %anila Re"enue *ode& null and "oid fornon?compliance with the prescribed procedure inthe enactment of ta! ordinances and forcontainin- certain pro"isions contrar( to law and

public polic(#n a petition for certiorari filed b( the *it( of%anila& the Re-ional Drial *ourt of %anilare"o.ed the Secretar(s resolution and sustainedthe ordinance& holdin- inter alia that theprocedural re=uirements had been obser"ed#%ore importantl(& it declared Section 187 of theLocal )o"ernment *ode as unconstitutionalbecause of its "esture in the Secretar( of Husticeof the power of control o"er local -o"ernments in"iolation of the polic( of local autonom(mandated in the *onstitution and of the specific

pro"ision therein conferrin- on the $resident ofthe $hilippines onl( the power of super"ision o"erlocal -o"ernments# Dhe court cited the familiardistinction between control and super"ision& thefirst bein- Cthe power of an officer to alter ormodif( or set aside what a subordinate officer haddone in the performance of his duties and tosubstitute the /ud-ment of the former for thelatter&: while the second is Cthe power of asuperior officer to see to it that lower officersperform their functions is accordance with law#:

1 whether ornot Section187 of theLocal)o"ernment*ode isunconstitutional and

2 whether ornot theSecretar( ofHustice cane!ercisecontrol& ratherthansuper"ision&o"er the local-o"ernment

Dhe /ud-ment of the lower court is re"ersed in sofar as its declaration that Section 187 of the Local)o"ernment *ode is unconstitutional butaffirmed the said lower courts findin- that theprocedural re=uirements in the enactment of the%anila Re"enue *ode ha"e been obser"ed#Section 187 authori


33/41

cities and $700 in municipalities be -ranted !!! C#$etitioner /ud-es ar-ue that Local ud-et *ircular;o# is "oid for infrin-in- on the local autonom(of %andaue b( dictatin- a uniform amount that anL)I can disburse as additional allowances to

/ud-es stationed therein# Dhe( maintained thatsaid circular is not supported b( an( law andtherefore went be(ond the super"isor( powers ofthe $resident#

$residentJ

5oes L*

-oes be(ond

the law it see.s

to implementJ

L* no -oes be(ond the law it see.s toimplement# Section 48 of RA 7160& the law thatsupposedl( ser"es as the le-al basis of L* &allows the -rant of additional allowances to

/ud-es Cwhen the finances of the cit( -o"ernmentallow#: Dhe said pro"ision does not authori


34/41

CenterEmpl&-ees v$CA

$resident /ustifies ane!ecuti"e action to carr( outthe reor-ani


35/41

includin- its pic.in- facilities in *ebu*it(# n ctober 1999& petitionerrelocated its plant and office in acolod*it( to aran-a( anica& Ro!as *it(# na letter dated 18 ;o"ember 1999&respondent informed petitioner thatthe latters D would be e!tended until

12 Au-ust 2000& pursuant to Article 39a 1 ii of M!ecuti"e rder ;o# 226# na letter dated 2 September 2003&respondent informed petitioner thatthe D pre"iousl( -ranted would beapplicable onl( to the period from 13Au-ust 1999 to 21 ctober 1999 orbefore petitioners transfer to a not less?de"eloped area# n 03 %a( 2004&petitioner recei"ed b( fa! s letter

den(in- its motion for reconsideration#$etitioner ele"ated the matter to theffice of the $resident& which dismissedpetitioners appeal on the -round of lac.of /urisdiction in a 5ecision dated 22September 2004# Dhe ffice of the$resident li.ewise denied petitionersmotion for reconsideration in an rderdated 14 %arch 200#$etitioner recei"eda cop( of the order on 01 April 200# Dhe

petition ar-ued that the e!ecuti"e powerof control o"er the acts of officials underthe ffice of the $resident is superior tothe appellate /urisdiction of the *ourt ofAppeals o"er decisions of =uasi?/udiciala-encies under the 1997 Rules of *i"il$rocedure#

*onstitution& which e!pressl( empowers the

Supreme *ourt to promul-ate rules concernin-

the procedure in all courts#

Section 17%ira&g& v$

Tr+thC&mmissi&n

$res# ;o(no( A=uino created $hilippine Druth

*ommission b( "irtue of M!ecuti"e rder ;o# 1#

Said e!ecuti"e order was =uestioned b( hereinpetitioners as "iolati"e of e=ual protection clause

insofar as its ob/ecti"e is to in"esti-ate lar-e

+;M!ecuti"e

rder ;o# 1"iolates theconstitutional

,es# M!ecuti"e rder ;o# 1 should be struc.down as "iolati"e of the e=ual protection clause#

Dhe clear mandate of the en"isioned truthcommission is to in"esti-ate and find out the truthconcernin- the reported cases of -raft and

l f d i d i h i f i d i h i d i i i


36/41

scale -raft and corruption durin- the pre"ious

administration under former president Arro(o#

$etitioners contend that it did not meet the

re=uisites for a "alid classification as it sin-les out

the pre"ious administration as its sole ob/ect#

Respondent& on the other hand& defended that it

was based on widespread reports of lar-e scale

-raft and corruption in the pre"ious administration

which ha"e eroded public confidence in public

institutions#

-uarant( ofe=ualprotection ofthe laws

corruption durin- the pre"ious administrationonl(#

Section 18Lansang vs$arcia

H*

Section 18A3erca v$ Ver

KD

Section 18I%P v$ ;am&ra

Dhe $resident shall be the*ommander?in?*hief of allarmed forces of the$hilippines and whene"er itbecomes necessar(& he ma(

call out such armed forces topre"ent or suppress lawless"iolence& in"asion& orrebellion#

Accordin- to $& no emer-enc( e!ists that would/ustif( the need for the callin- of the militar( toassist the $olice force# t contends that no lawless"iolence& in"asion or rebellion e!ist to warrant thecallin- of the marines# urthermore& it contends

that the declaration of a state of rebellion cannotbe an e!ception to the -eneral rule on theallocation of the -o"ernmental powers#

*an the$resident callout the Armedorces of the$hilippines

Section 18& Art E of the *onstitution e!pressl(pro"ides that Cthe $resident shall be the*ommander?in?*hief of all armed forces of the$hilippines and whene"er it becomes necessar(&he ma( call out such armed forces to pre"ent or

suppress lawless "iolence& in"asion or rebellion# ## C Dhe factual necessit( of callin- out the armedforces is somethin- that is for the $resident todecide# e has a "ast intelli-ence networ. to-ather information& some of which ma( beclassified as hi-hl( confidential or affectin- thesecurit( of the state# n the e!ercise of the powerto call& on?the?spot decisions ma( be imperati"el(necessar( in emer-enc( situations to a"ert -reatloss of human li"es and mass destruction ofpropert(#

Section 18

Lacs&n v$Pere

%MLE;

Section 18Sanla7as v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

Some three hundred /unior officers and enlistedmen of the Armed orces of the $hilippines A$stormed into the a.wood $remiere apartmentsin %a.ati *it( in the middle of the ni-ht# n the

wa.e of the a.wood occupation& the $residentissued later in the da( $roclamation ;o# 427 and)eneral rder ;o# 4& both declarin- a state ofrebellion and callin- out the Armed orces tosuppress the rebellion

+hether the

president can

declare a state

of rebellion#

Section 18& Article E does not e!pressl( prohibitthe $resident from declarin- a state of rebellion#;ote that the *onstitution "ests the $resident notonl( with *ommander?in?*hief powers but& firstand foremost& with M!ecuti"e powers#Dhe $residentOs authorit( to declare a state ofrebellion sprin-s in the main from her powers aschief e!ecuti"e and& at the same time& drawsstren-th from her *ommander?in?*hief powers#

Section 18

#an,&l. S$Davi, v$ l&riaMacapagal9

Dhe $resident ma( call the

Armed orces to pre"ent orsuppress lawless "iolence&in"asion or rebellion#

n ebruar( 24& 2006& as the ilipino nation

celebrated the 20th Anni"ersar( of the M5SA$eople $ower & $resident Arro(o issued $$1017& implemented b( )## ;o# & declarin- a

+hether the

issuance of $$1017 is*onstitutional#

$$ 1017 is constitutional insofar as it constitutes

a call b( the $resident for the A$ to pre"ent orsuppress Lawless "iolence# Dhe proclamation issustained b( Section 18& Article E of the

A t t f ti l th i t ti * tit ti


37/41

Arr&-& state of national emer-enc(# n their presentationof the factual bases of $$ 1017 and )## ;o# &respondents stated that the pro!imate causebehind the e!ecuti"e issuances was theconspirac( amon- some militar( officers& leftistinsur-ents of the ;ew $eoples Arm(& and somemembers of the political opposition in a plot tounseat or assassinate $resident Arro(o# Dhe(considered the aim to oust or assassinate the$resident and ta.e?o"er the reins of -o"ernment

as a clear and present dan-er# $etitioners 5a"idand Llamas were arrested without warrants onebruar( 24& 2006 on their wa( to M5SA#%eanwhile& the office of the newspaper 5ail(Dribune& which was percei"ed to be anti?Arro(o&

was searched without warrant at about 1>00 A#%#on ebruar( 2& 2006# Sei


38/41

emer-enc( powers& and that the $resident hadno factual basis for declarin- a state ofemer-enc(& especiall( in the $ro"ince of SultanKudarat and the *it( of *otabato& where nocritical "iolent incidents occurred# Dhe( want$roc# 1946 and A 273 be declaredunconstitutional#Dhe respondents& howe"er& said that its purpose

was not to depri"e the AR%% of its autonom(&but to restore peace and order in sub/ect places#

t is pursuant to her Ccallin- out: power as*ommander?in?*hief# Dhe determination of theneed to e!ercise this power rests solel( on her

wisdom# Dhe $resident merel( dele-ated hersuper"isor( powers o"er the AR%% to the 5L)Secretar( who was her alter e-o an( wa(# Dhedele-ation was necessar( to facilitate thein"esti-ation of the mass .illin-s

Section 19Crist&3al v$La3ra,&r

Santos was con"icted of the crime of estafa# ewas -i"en pardon b( the president but e"en priorto his pardon he was alread( holdin- the positionas the municipalit( president of %alabon

notwithstandin- his con"iction# *ristobal& on theother hand& a"erred that Santos should bee!cluded from the list of electors in %alabonbecause he was alread( con"icted of final

/ud-ment Cfor an( crime a-ainst propert(:# Dhis ispursuant to *A 37 of the ;ew Mlection *ode#Dhe lower court presided b( Labrador ruled thatSantos is e!empt from the pro"ision of the law b("irtue of the pardon restorin- the respondent tohis Cfull ci"il and political ri-hts& e!cept that withrespect to the ri-ht to hold public office oremplo(ment& he will be eli-ible for appointment

onl( to positions which are clerical or manual innature and in"ol"in- no mone( or propert(responsibilit(#:

+hether or notSantos shouldnot bee!cluded as an

elector#

t should be obser"ed that there are twolimitations upon the e!ercise of this constitutionalprero-ati"e b( the *hief M!ecuti"e& namel(> athat the power be e!ercised after con"iction and

b that such power does not e!tend cases ofimpeachment# Sub/ect to the limitations imposedb( the *onstitution& the pardonin- power cannotbe restricted or controlled b( le-islati"e action#An absolute pardon not onl( blots out the crimecommitted& but remo"es all disabilities resultin-from the con"iction# +hen -ranted after the termof imprisonment has e!pired& absolute pardonremo"es all that is left of the conse=uences ofcon"iction# n the present case& while the pardone!tended to respondent Santos is conditional inthe sense that Che will be eli-ible for appointment

onl( to positions which a e clerical or manual innature in"ol"in- no mone( or propert(responsibilit(&: it is absolute insofar as it Crestoresthe respondent to full ci"il and political ri-hts#Ipon other hand& the su--estion that thedis=ualification imposed in par b of sec 94 of*A 37& does not fall within the pur"iew of thepardonin- power of the president& would lead tothe impairment of the pardonin- power of thepresident& not contemplated in the *onstitution&and would lead furthermore to the result thatthere would be no wa( of restorin- the political

pri"ile-e in a case of this nature e!cept throu-hle-islati"e action#

Section 19 H*

Llamas v


39/41

Llamas v$Or3&s

Section 19Pe&ple v$ Salle

KD

Section 19Dril&n v$ CA

*ommutations -ranted b( the$resident do not ha"e to be inan( specific form#

$ri"ate respondent )an


40/41

circumstances and conditions of IS Armed thirds of all the members of the Senate


41/41

circumstances and conditions of IS Armedorces and defense personnel in the $hilippines#

thirds of all the members of the Senate#

Section 21Pimentel v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

%MLE;

Section 21Lim v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

;ML

Section 21Secretar- &.4+stice vsLanti&n

M!tradition is not a criminalproceedin- which will call intooperation all the ri-hts of anaccused -uaranteed b( theill of Ri-hts# Dhe process ofe!tradition does not in"ol"ethe determination of the -uiltor innocence of an accused#is -uilt or innocence will bead/ud-ed in the court of thestate where he will bee!tradited#

n Hune 18& 1999& the 5epartment of Husticerecei"ed from the 5epartment of orei-n Affairsof the Inited States re=uestin- for the e!traditionof %ar. Himene< for "arious crimes in "iolation ofIS laws# n compliance with the related municipallaw& specificall( $residential 5ecree ;o# 1069C$rescribin- the $rocedure for M!tradition of$ersons +ho a"e committed *rimes in aorei-n *ountr(: and the established CM!traditionDreat( etween the )o"ernment of the$hilippines and the )o"ernment of the InitedStates of America:& the department proceeded

with proceeded with the desi-nation of a panel ofattorne(s to conduct a technical e"aluation andassessment as pro"ided for in the presidentialdecree and the treat(#Dhe respondent re=uested for a cop( of theofficial e!tradition re=uest as well as thedocuments and papers submitted therein# Dhepetitioner denied the re=uest as it alle-es thatsuch information is confidential in nature and thatit is premature to pro"ide such document as theprocess is not a preliminar( in"esti-ation but amere e"aluation# Dherefore& the constitutional

ri-hts of the accused are not (et a"ailable#

+; pri"aterespondententitled to thetwo basic dueprocess ri-htsof notice andhearin- durin-the e"aluationsta-e of thee!traditionproceedin-s#

$ri"ate respondent is not entitled of the ri-ht tonotice and hearin- durin- the e"aluation sta-e ofthe e!tradition process# M!tradition is aproceedin- sui -eneris# t is not a criminalproceedin- which will call into operation all theri-hts of an accused -uaranteed b( the ill ofRi-hts# Dhe process of e!tradition does notin"ol"e the determination of the -uilt orinnocence of an accused# is -uilt or innocence

will be ad/ud-ed in the court of the state wherehe will be e!tradited#

Section 21Vin+-a v$E1ec+tiveSecretar-

RMA

Section 21%a-an M+na v$#&m+l&

,

consti case summary

Documents