[CONSTI] Digested Cases Article VII Section 16 -23

7/23/2019 [CONSTI] Digested Cases Article VII Section 16 -23

1/145

SECTION 16

Soriano III v. Lista

399 SCRA 437

Topic: Commission on Appointments

Facts:

This is a petition for prohibition questioning the constitutionality and

legality of the permanent appointments, made by President GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo, of public respondents to dierent positions in the

Philippine Coast Guard and their subsequent assumption of o!ce

"ithout con#rmation by the Commission on Appointments under the

$%&' Constitution(

Petitioner be"ails the fact that despite the non-submission of their

names to the Commission on Appointments )CA* for con#rmation, all of

the said respondent o!cers of the PCG had assumed their duties andfunctions( According to petitioner, their respecti+e appointments are

illegal and unconstitutional for failure to undergo the con#rmation

process in the CA( Thus, they should be prohibited from discharging

their duties and functions as such o!cers of the PCG(

ssue:


2/145

hether or not the appointment in PCGs falls upon the .o!cers of the

armed forces from the ran/ of colonel or na+al captain0 of 1ection $2,

Article 3 of the $%&' Constitution, "hich requires the con#rmation by

the Commission of Appointments(

4eld:

5o( 6ue to the e7ercise of statutory authority of the President to

reorgani8e the 9!ce of the President, the PCG is no" under the 69TC

and no longer part of the Philippine 5a+y or the Armed Forces of the

Philippines, the promotions and appointments of respondent o!cers ofthe PCG, or any PCG o!cer from the ran/ of captain and higher for that

matter, do not require con#rmation by the CA(

The clause .o!cers of the armed forces from the ran/ of colonel or

na+al captain0 refers to military o!cers alone(

Pobre vs. Mendieta

!.R. No. 1"6677# $%&' (3# 1993)


3/145

Facts: These consolidated petitions under ules ;< and 2< of the ules

of Court "ere #led by 4ermogenes Pobre to set aside the decision

dated August


4/145

4eld:

T4D P9D 9F APP95TMD5T CA559T D D1TCTD6 T9 T4D P95T

T4AT T4D 9FFCD E91D1 T4D 61CDT95( The Court #nds

unacceptable the +ie" that e+ery +acancy in the Commission )e7cept

the position of >unior Associate Commissioner* shall be #lled by

succession or by operation of la" for that "ould depri+e the

President of his po"er to appoint a ne" PC Commissioner and

Associate Commissioners all to be appointed by the President

under P(6( 5o( ==( The absurd result "ould be that the only occasion

for the President to e7ercise his appointing po"er "ould be "hen the

position of >unior )or second* Associate Commissioner becomes +acant(e may not presume that "hen the President issued P(6( 5o( ==, he

deliberately clipped his prerogati+e to choose and appoint the head of

the PC and limited himself to the selection and appointment of only

the associate commissioner occupying the lo"est rung of the ladder in

that agency( 1ince such an absurdity may not be presumed, the Court

should so construe the la" as to a+oid it(

The duty de+ol+es on the court to ascertain the true meaning "here

the language of a statute is of doubtful meaning, or "here an

adherence to the strict letter "ould lead to in>ustice, absurdity, or

contradictory pro+isions, since an ambiguity calling for construction

may arise "hen the consequence of a literal interpretation of the


5/145

language is an un>ust, absurd, unreasonable, or mischie+ous result, or

one at +ariance "ith the policy of the legislation as a "holeH and the

real meaning of the statute is to be ascertained and declared, e+en

though it seems to conIict "ith the "ords of the statute( )&= C?1


6/145

electi+e o!cial shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any

capacity to any public o!cer or position during his tenure, The

petitioners also contend that Congress encroaches upon the

discretionary po"er of the President to appoint(

11KD:

hether or not said pro+ision of the A '==' +iolates the constitutional

prescription against appointment or designation of electi+e o!cials to

other go+ernment posts(

KE5G:

The court held the Constitution see/s to pre+ent a public o!cer to hold

multiple functions since they are accorded "ith a public o!ce that is a

full time >ob to let them function "ithout the distraction of other

go+ernmental duties(

The Congress gi+es the President the appointing authority "hich it

cannot limit by pro+iding the condition that in the #rst year of the

operation the Mayor of 9longapo City shall assume the Chairmanship(

The court points out that the appointing authority the congress gi+es


7/145

to the President is no po"er at all as it curtails the right of the

President to e7ercise discretion of "hom to appoint by limiting his

choice(

L%e0o v. Civi& Servie Co22ission

,!. R. No. L69137/

FACT1: Petitioner "as appointed Administrati+e 9!cer , 9!ce of the

City Mayor, Cebu City, by Mayor Florentino 1olon on $& February $%&(The appointment "as described as .permanent0 but the Ci+il 1er+ice

Commission appro+ed it as .temporary(0 9n == March $%&;, the Ci+il

1er+ice Commission found the pri+ate respondent better quali#ed than

the petitioner for the contested position and accordingly directed

herein pri+ate respondent in place of petitionerLs position( The pri+ate

respondent "as so appointed on =& ?une $%&;, by the ne" mayorH

Mayor onald 6uterte( The petitioner is no" in+o/ing his earlierpermanent appointment as "ell as to question the Ci+il 1er+ice

CommissionLs order and the pri+ate respondentLs title(

11KD: hether or not the Ci+il 1er+ice Commission is authori8ed to

disappro+e a permanent appointment on the ground that another


8/145

person is better quali#ed than the appointee and, on the basis of this

#nding, order his replacement by the latter

4DE6: The 1upreme Court ruled in the negati+e( The Ci+il 1er+ice

Commission is not empo"ered to determine the /ind or nature of the

appointment e7tended by the appointing o!cer, its authority being

limited to appro+ing or re+ie"ing the appointment in the light of the

requirements of the Ci+il 1er+ice Ea"( hen the appointee is quali#ed

and the other legal requirements are satis#ed, the Commission has no

choice but to attest to the appointment in accordance "ith the Ci+il

1er+ice Ea"s( 4ence, the Ci+il 1er+ice CommissionLs resolution is set

aside(

Matiba0 vs. eni5a'o

!.R. No. 149"36 A5ri& (# (""(

Facts:

The case is a petition for prohibition "ith prayer for the issuance of a"rit of preliminary in>unction and a temporary restraining order under

ule 2< of the $%%' ules of Ci+il Procedure( Petitioner questions the

constitutionality of the appointment and the right to hold o!ce of the

follo"ing: Alfredo E( enipayo as Chairman of the Commission on

Dlections, esurreccion N( orra and Florentino A( Tuason, ?r( as


9/145

C9MDEDC Commissioners( Petitioner also questions the legality of the

appointment of 3elma ?( Cinco as 6irector 3 of the C9MDEDCLs

Dducation and nformation 6epartment(

Petitioner #led the instant petition questioning the appointment and

the right to remain in o!ce of enipayo, orra and Tuason, as

Chairman and Commissioners of the C9MDEDC, respecti+ely( Petitioner

claims that the ad interim appointments of enipayo, orra and Tuason

+iolate the constitutional pro+isions on the independence of the

C9MDEDC, as "ell as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments

and reappointments of its Chairman and members( Petitioner also

assails as illegal her remo+al as 6irector 3 of the D6 and her

reassignment to the Ea" 6epartment( 1imultaneously, petitioner

challenges the designation of Cinco as 9!cer-in-Charge of the D6(

Petitioner, moreo+er, questions the legality of the disbursements made

by C9MDEDC Finance 1er+ices 6epartment 9!cer-in-Charge Gideon C(

6e Gu8man to enipayo, orra and Tuason by "ay of salaries and

other emoluments(

ssue:

hether or not the assumption of o!ce by enipayo, orra and Tuason

on the basis of the ad interim appointments issued by the President


10/145

amounts to a temporary appointment prohibited by 1ection $ )=*,

Article J-C of the Constitution

uling:

5o, An ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment because it

ta/es eect immediately and can no longer be "ithdra"n by the

President once the appointee has quali#ed into o!ce( The fact that it is

sub>ect to con#rmation by the Commission on Appointments does not

alter its permanent character( The Constitution itself ma/es an ad

interim appointment permanent in character by ma/ing it eecti+euntil disappro+ed by the Commission on Appointments or until the ne7t

ad>ournment of Congress( The second paragraph of 1ection $2, Article

3 of the Constitution pro+ides as follo"s:

The President shall ha+e the po"er to ma/e appointments during the

recess of the Congress, "hether +oluntary or compulsory, but such

appointments shall be eecti+e only until disappro+al by the

Commission on Appointments or until the ne7t ad>ournment of the

Congress( )Dmphasis supplied*


11/145

Thus, the ad interim appointment remains eecti+e until such

disappro+al or ne7t ad>ournment, signifying that it can no longer be

"ithdra"n or re+o/ed by the President( The fear that the President can

"ithdra" or re+o/e at any time and for any reason an ad interimappointment is utterly "ithout basis(

An ad interim appointee "ho has quali#ed and assumed o!ce

becomes at that moment a go+ernment employee and therefore part

of the ci+il ser+ice( 4e en>oys the constitutional protection that Ono

o!cer or employee in the ci+il ser+ice shall be remo+ed or suspended

e7cept for cause pro+ided by la"( Thus, an ad interim appointment

becomes complete and irre+ocable once the appointee has quali#ed

into o!ce( The "ithdra"al or re+ocation of an ad interim appointment

is possible only if it is communicated to the appointee before the

moment he quali#es, and any "ithdra"al or re+ocation thereafter is

tantamount to remo+al from o!ce( 9nce an appointee has quali#ed,

he acquires a legal right to the o!ce "hich is protected not only by

statute but also by the Constitution( 4e can only be remo+ed for cause,after notice and hearing, consistent "ith the requirements of due

process(

An ad interim appointment can be terminated for t"o causes speci#ed

in the Constitution( The #rst cause is the disappro+al of his ad interim


12/145

appointment by the Commission on Appointments( The second cause is

the ad>ournment of Congress "ithout the Commission on Appointments

acting on his appointment( These t"o causes are resolutory conditions

e7pressly imposed by the Constitution on all ad interim appointments(These resolutory conditions constitute, in eect, a 1"ord of 6amocles

o+er the heads of ad interim appointees( 5o one, ho"e+er, can

complain because it is the Constitution itself that places the 1"ord of

6amocles o+er the heads of the ad interim appointees(

hile an ad interim appointment is permanent and irre+ocable e7cept

as pro+ided by la", an appointment or designation in a temporary or

acting capacity can be "ithdra"n or re+o/ed at the pleasure of the

appointing po"er( A temporary or acting appointee does not en>oy any

security of tenure, no matter ho" brieIy( This is the /ind of

appointment that the Constitution prohibits the President from ma/ing

to the three independent constitutional commissions, including the

C9MDEDC( hile the Constitution mandates that the C9MDEDC shall

be independent, this pro+ision should be harmoni8ed "ith thePresidents po"er to e7tend ad interim appointments( To hold that the

independence of the C9MDEDC requires the Commission on

Appointments to #rst con#rm ad interim appointees before the

appointees can assume o!ce "ill negate the PresidentLs po"er to

ma/e ad interim appointments( This is contrary to the rule on statutory

construction to gi+e meaning and eect to e+ery pro+ision of the la"( t


13/145

"ill also run counter to the clear intent of the framers of the

Constitution(

herefore petition is dismissed for lac/ of merit(

AILINO . PIMENTEL# $R.#vs E8ECTIE SECRETAR:E+AR+O ERMITA

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition "ith a prayer for the

issuance of a "rit of preliminary in>unction to declare unconstitutional

the appointments issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through

D7ecuti+e 1ecretary Dduardo ( Drmita et al,( as acting secretaries of

their respecti+e departments( The petition also see/s to prohibitrespondents from performing the duties of department secretaries(

The 1enate and the 4ouse of epresentati+es )Congress* commenced

their regular session on =2 ?uly =@@;( The Commission on


14/145

Appointments, composed of 1enators and epresentati+es, "as

constituted on =< August =@@;(

Mean"hile, President Arroyo issued appointments to respondents as

acting secretaries of their respecti+e departments( Arthur C( Qap for

6epartment of Agriculture, Alberto G( omulo for 6epartment of

Foreign Aairs, aul M( Gon8ale8 for 6epartment of ?ustice, Florencio (

Abad for 6epartment of Dducation, A+elino ?( Cru8, ?r( for 6epartment

of 5ational 6efense, ene C( 3illa 6epartment of Agrarian eform,

?oseph 4( 6urano 6epartment of Tourism, Michael T( 6efensor

6epartment of Dn+ironment and 5atural esources( espondents too/their oath of o!ce and assumed duties as acting secretaries(

Petitioners a+erred that PGMA cannot appoint "ithout the consent

of the Commission on Appointments that in accordance "ith section $@

chapter = oo/ 3 of the D9 no( =%=, only the undersecretary of the

respecti+e departments should be designated in an acting capacity

and not anyone else(

9n the contrary, D7ecuti+e 1ecretary Drmita a+erred that the

president eis empo"ered by section $2 of Article 3 of the constitution

to issue appointment in an acting capacity to department secretaries

"ithout the consent of the C9A e+en "hile congress is in session(


15/145

6uring the pendency of the case, congress ad>ourned and PGMA issued

an ad interim appointment re-appointing those pre+iously appointed in

acting capacity(

ssue:

hether President ArroyoLs appointment is +alid e+en "ithout the

consent of the Commission on Appointments and "hile the Congress is

in session

uling:

Qes, the po"er to appoint is essentially e7ecuti+e in nature, and the

legislature may not interfere "ith the e7ercise of this e7ecuti+e po"er

e7cept in those instances "hen the Constitution e7pressly allo"s it to

interfere( Eimitations on the e7ecuti+e po"er to appoint are construedstrictly against the legislature( The scope of the legislatures

interference in the e7ecuti+es po"er to appoint is limited to the po"er

to prescribe the quali#cations to an appointi+e o!ce( Congress cannot

appoint a person to an o!ce in the guise of prescribing quali#cations

to that o!ce( 5either may Congress impose on the President the duty

to appoint any particular person to an o!ce(


16/145

4o"e+er, e+en if the Commission on Appointments is composed of

members of Congress, the e7ercise of its po"ers is e7ecuti+e and not

legislati+e( The Commission on Appointments does not legislate "hen

it e7ercises its po"er to gi+e or "ithhold consent to presidentialappointments(

The President can issue appointments in an acting capacity to

department secretaries "ithout the consent of the Commission on

Appointments e+en "hile Congress is in session( espondents point to

1ection $2, Article 3 of the $%&' Constitution( 1ection $2 reads:

1DC( $2( The President shall nominate and, "ith the consent of the

Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the e7ecuti+e

departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or

o!cers of the armed forces from the ran/ of colonel or na+al captain,

and other o!cers "hose appointments are +ested in him in this

Constitution( 4e shall also appoint all other o!cers of the Go+ernment

"hose appointments are not other"ise pro+ided for by la", and those

"hom he may be authori8ed by la" to appoint( The Congress may, byla", +est the appointment of other o!cers lo"er in ran/ in the

President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments,

agencies, commissions, or boards(


17/145

The President shall ha+e the po"er to ma/e appointments during the

recess of the Congress, "hether +oluntary or compulsory, but such

appointments shall be eecti+e only until disappro+al by the

Commission on Appointments or until the ne7t ad>ournment of theCongress(

espondents also rely on D9 =%=, "hich de+otes a chapter to the

Presidents po"er of appointment( 1ections $2 and $', Chapter


18/145

e7isting salary, shall not e7ceed the salary authori8ed by la" for the

position #lled( The compensation hereby authori8ed shall be paid out of

the funds appropriated for the o!ce or agency concerned(

)* n no case shall a temporary designation e7ceed one )$* year()Dmphasis supplied*

n distinguishing ad interim appointments from appointments in an

acting capacity, a noted te7tboo/ "riter on constitutional la" has

obser+ed:

Ad-interim appointments must be distinguished from appointments in

an acting capacity( oth of them are eecti+e upon acceptance( utad-interim appointments are e7tended only during a recess of

Congress, "hereas acting appointments may be e7tended any time

there is a +acancy( Moreo+er ad-interim appointments are submitted to

the Commission on Appointments for con#rmation or re>ectionH acting

appointments are not submitted to the Commission on Appointments(

Acting appointments are a "ay of temporarily #lling important o!ces

but, if abused, they can also be a "ay of circum+enting the need for

con#rmation by the Commission on Appointments(

Matiba0 vs. eni5a'o


19/145

=@& 1CA =ect to con#rmation by the

Commission on Appointments )C9A*(

Pursuant to the said la", President Cora8on Aquino appointed

artolome Carale et al as the Chairman and the Commissionersrespecti+ely of the 5EC( The appointments "ere ho"e+er not

submitted to the CoA for its con#rmation( Peter ?ohn Calderon

questioned the appointment saying that "ithout the con#rmation by

the CoA, such an appointment is in +iolation of A 2'$


20/145

11KD: hether or not Congress may, by la", e7pand the list of public

o!cers required to be con#rmed by the Commission on Appointment

as listed in the Constitution(

4DE6: 5o( Knder the pro+isions of the $%&' Constitution, there are

four );* groups of o!cers "hom the President shall appoint( These four

);* groups are:

First, the heads of the e7ecuti+e departments, ambassadors, other

public ministers and consuls, o!cers of the armed forces from the ran/

of colonel or na+al captain, and other o!cers "hose appointments are

+ested in him in this ConstitutionH

1econd, all other o!cers of the Go+ernment "hose appointments are

not other"ise pro+ided for by la"H

Third, those "hom the President may be authori8ed by la" to appointH

Fourth, o!cers lo"er in ran/ "hose appointments the Congress may

by la" +est in the President alone(

The 1upreme Court agreed "ith the 1olicitor General: con#rmation by

the CoA is required e7clusi+ely for the heads of e7ecuti+e departments,


21/145

ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, o!cers of the armed forces

from the ran/ of colonel or na+al captain, and other o!cers "hose

appointments are +ested in the President by the Constitution, such as

the members of the +arious Constitutional Commissions )#rst group*(ith respect to the other o!cers )second to fourth group* "hose

appointments are not other"ise pro+ided for by the la" and to those

"hom the President may be authori8ed by la" to appoint, no

con#rmation by the Commission on Appointments is required(

.4ad it been the intention to allo" Congress to e7pand the list of

o!cers "hose appointments must be con#rmed by the Commission on

Appointments, the Constitution "ould ha+e said so by adding the

phrase .and other o!cers required by la"0 at the end of the #rst

sentence, or the phrase, ."ith the consent of the Commission on

Appointments0 at the end of the second sentence( D+idently, our

Constitution has signi#cantly omitted to pro+ide for such additions(

This >urisprudence established the follo"ing in interpreting 1ec $2, Art

' of the Constitution


22/145

$( Con#rmation by the Commission on Appointments is required only

for presidential appointees mentioned in the #rst sentence of 1ection

$2, Article 3, including, those o!cers "hose appointments are

e7pressly +ested by the Constitution itself in the president )li/esectoral representati+es to Congress and members of the

constitutional commissions of Audit, Ci+il 1er+ice and Dlection*(

=( Con#rmation is not required "hen the President appoints other

go+ernment o!cers "hose appointments are not other"ise pro+ided

for by la" or those o!cers "hom he may be authori8ed by la" to

appoint )li/e the Chairman and Members of the Commission on 4uman

ights*( Also, as obser+ed in Mison, "hen Congress creates inferioro!ces but omits to pro+ide for appointment thereto, or pro+ides in an

unconstitutional manner for such appointments, the o!cers are

considered as among those "hose appointments are not other"ise

pro+ided for by la"(

Tarrosa vs Sin0son

Appointing Po"er, Commission on Appointments, Con#rmation Po"er

Facts:


23/145

Gabriel C( 1ingson "as appointed Go+ernor of the ang/o 1entral by

President Fidel 3( amos in $%%( ?esus Armando Tarrosa, as a

ta7payer, #led a petition for prohibition questioning the appointment

of 1ingson for not ha+ing been con#rmed by the Commission onAppointments as required by the pro+isions of 1ection 2 of (A( 5o(

'2ect to C9ALs

con#rmation(

4eld:


24/145

5o( Congress e7ceeded its legislati+e po"ers in requiring the

con#rmation by the C9A of the appointment of the Go+ernor of the

1P( An appointment to the said position is not among the

appointments "hich ha+e to be con#rmed by the C9A under 1ection$2 of Article ' of the Constitution( Congress cannot by la" e7pand the

con#rmation po"ers of the Commission on Appointments and require

con#rmation of appointment of other go+ernment o!cials not

e7pressly mentioned in the #rst sentence of 1ection $2 of Article ' of

the Constitution( )Tarrosa +s( 1ingson, G(( 5o( $$$=;, May =ust cause in +iolation of his security of

tenure( The petitioner bases his claim on the follo"ing communication

addressed to him by theMinister of Tourism on April ', $%&2(Persuant

thereto, petitioner assumed o!ce on the same date(inamira claims

that since assuming o!ce, he had discharged the duties of PTA

General Manager and3ice-Chairman of its oard of 6irectors and had

been ac/no"ledged as such by +arious go+ernmento!ces, including


25/145

the 9!ce of the President( 4e complains that his resignation "as

demanded byrespondent Garrucho as the ne" 1ecretary of Tourism(9n

?anuary ;, $%%@, President Aquino sent respondent Garrucho a

memorandum stating that petitionerSs designation is in+alid since it"as designated not by the President but only by the 1ecretaryof

Tourism( Garrucho is then designated as General Manager until the

President can appoint a person toser+e in the said o!ce in a

permanent capacity( Garrucho too/ o+er as the General Manager of the

PTAand thereafter Pres( Aquino appointed ?ose A( Capistrano as

General Manager of PTA(

11KD1:

hether or not petitioner had been remo+ed "ithout >ust cause in

+iolation of security of tenure

4DE6: 5o, the designation is considered only on an acting or temporary

appointment "hich does not confer security of tenure( Petitioner "as

not appointed by the President of the Philippines but only designated

by the Minister of Tourism( There is a clear distinction bet"een

appointment and designation that the petitioner has failed to consider(

Appointment may be de#ned as the selection, by the authority +ested

"ith the po"er, of an indi+idual "ho is to e7ercise the functions of a


26/145

gi+en o!ce( hen completed, usually "ith its con#rmation, the

appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless

he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his o!ce(

6esignation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by la"of additional duties on an incumbent o!cial, as "here, in the case

before us, the 1ecretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the

oard of 6irectors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or "here, under

the Constitution, three ?ustices of the 1upreme Court are designated by

the Chief ?ustice to sit in the Dlectoral Tribunal of the 1enate or the

4ouse of epresentati+es( t is said that appointment is essentially

e7ecuti+e "hile designation is legislati+e in nature(

6esignation may also be loosely de#ned as an appointment because it

li/e"ise in+ol+es the naming of a particular person to a speci#ed public

o!ce( That is the common understanding of the term( 4o"e+er, "here

the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is

that he shall hold the o!ce only in a temporary capacity and may be

replaced at "ill by the appointing authority( n this sense, thedesignation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment,

"hich does not confer security of tenure on the person named(

D+en if so understood, that is, as an appointment, the

designation of the petitioner cannot sustain his claim that he has been


27/145

illegally remo+ed( The reason is that the decree clearly pro+ides that

the appointment of the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism

Authority shall be made by the President of the Philippines, not by any

other o!cer( Appointment in+ol+es the e7ercise of discretion, "hichbecause of its nature cannot be delegated( Eegally spea/ing, it "as not

possible for Minister Gon8ales to assume the e7ercise of that discretion

as an alter ego of the President( The appointment )or designation* of

the petitioner "as not a merely mechanical or ministerial act that could

be +alidly performed by a subordinate e+en if he happened as in this

case to be a member of the Cabinet(

Sar2iento v Mison

FACT1:

Mison "as appointed as the Commissioner of the ureau of Customs

and Carague as the 1ecretary of the 6epartment of udget, "ithout

the con#rmation of the Commission on Appointments( 1armiento

assailed the appointments as unconstitutional by reason of its not

ha+ing been con#rmed by CoA(

11KD:


28/145

hether or not the appointment is +alid(

KE5G:Qes( The President acted "ithin her constitutional authority and po"er

in appointing 1al+ador Mison, "ithout submitting his nomination to the

CoA for con#rmation( 4e is thus entitled to e7ercise the full authority

and functions of the o!ce and to recei+e all the salaries and

emoluments pertaining thereto(

Knder 1ec $2 Art( 3 of the $%&' Constitution, there are ; groups of

o!cers "hom the President shall appoint:

$st, appointment of e7ecuti+e departments and bureaus heads,

ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, o!cers of the armed

forces from the ran/ of colonel or na+al captain, and other o!cers "ith

the consent and con#rmation of the CoA(

=nd, all other Go+ernment o!cers "hose appointments are not

other"ise pro+ided by la"H

rd those "hom the President may be authori8ed by the la" to

appointH


29/145

;th, lo"-ran/ing o!cers "hose appointments the Congress may by la"

+est in the President alone(

First group of o!cers is clearly appointed "ith the consent of the

Commission on Appointments( Appointments of such o!cers areinitiated by nomination and, if the nomination is con#rmed by the

Commission on Appointments, the President appoints(

=nd, rd and ;th group of o!cers are the present bone of contention(

y follo"ing the accepted rule in constitutional and statutory

construction that an e7press enumeration of sub>ects e7cludes othersnot enumerated, it "ould follo" that only those appointments to

positions e7pressly stated in the #rst group require the consent

)con#rmation* of the Commission on Appointments(

t is e+ident that the position of Commissioner of the ureau of

Customs )a bureau head* is not one of those "ithin the #rst group of

appointments "here the consent of the Commission on Appointments

is required( The $%&' Constitution deliberately e7cluded the position of

heads of bureaus from appointments that need the consent

)con#rmation* of the Commission on Appointments


30/145

INTOS+ELES S COMMISSION ON CONSTITTIONALCOMMISSIONS

Posted by /aye lee on $$:$2 PM

G(( 5o( &=$2 1eptember ; $%&% OAppointing Po"er

FACT1:

This is a special ci+ic action for prohibition and mandamus "ith

in>unction see/ing to compel CoA to allo" uintos-6eles to perform

and ischarege her duties as 4o member representing omenSs 1ectorand to restrain respondents from sub>ecting her appointment to the

con#rmation process( uintos-6eles ad three others "ere appointed

1ectoral epresentati+es by the President pursuant to Art( 3 1ec $2

p(= and Art( J3 1ec( ' of the Constitution(

11KD:

o5 the Constitution requires the appointment of sectoral

representati+es to the 4o to be con#rmed by the CoA(

KE5G:


31/145

Qes( The seats reser+ed for sectoral representati+es in paragraph =,

1ection


32/145

The President appointed Mary Concepcion autista as the Chairman of

the Commission on 4uman ights pursuant to the second sentence in

1ection $2, Art( 3, "ithout the con#rmation of the CoA because they

are among the o!cers of go+ernment "hom he )the President* may

be authori8ed by la" to appoint( 1ection =)c*, D7ecuti+e 9rder 5o(

$2, authori8es the President to appoint the Chairman and Members of

the Commission on 4uman ights( CoA disappro+ed autistaSs alleged

ad interim appointment as Chairperson of the C4 in +ie" of her

refusal to submit to the >urisdiction of the Commission on

Appointments(

11KD1:

$( hether or not autistaSs appointment is sub>ect to CoASs

con#rmation(

=( hether or not autistaSs appointment is an ad interim

appointment(

KE5G:

$( 5o( The position of Chairman of C4 is not among the positions

mentioned in the #rst sentence of 1ec( $2 Art ' of the Constitution,

"hich pro+ides that the appointments "hich are to be made "ith the


33/145

con#rmation of CoA( ather, it is "ithin the authority of President,

+ested upon her by Constitution )=nd sentence of 1ec( $2 Art '*, that

she appoint e7ecuti+e o!cials "ithout con#rmation of CoA(

The Commission on Appointments, by the actual e7ercise of itsconstitutionally delimited po"er to re+ie" presidential appointments,

cannot create po"er to con#rm appointments that the Constitution has

reser+ed to the President alone(

=( Knder the Constitutional design, ad interim appointments do not

apply to appointments solely for the President to ma/e( Ad interim

appointments, by their +ery nature under the $%&' Constitution,

e7tend only to appointments "here the re+ie" of the Commission onAppointments is needed( That is "hy ad interim appointments are to

remain +alid until disappro+al by the Commission on Appointments or

until the ne7t ad>ournment of CongressH but appointments that are for

the President solely to ma/e, that is, "ithout the participation of the

Commission on Appointments, cannot be ad interim appointments(

SECTION 17


34/145

Uilusang ayan sa Pagliling/od 5g Mga Magtitinda ng agong

Pamilihang ayan ng Muntilupa, nc( )UMPM* pursuant to the

6epartmentLs regulatory and super+isory po"ers under 1ection & of

P(6( 5o( $'


35/145

4eld: egulation ; of Eetter of mplementation 5o( = )implementing

P(6( 5o( $'ority of the members entitled to +ote at an annual or

special general assembly( The person in+ol+ed shall ha+e an

opportunity to be heard(

A substantially identical pro+ision, found in 1ection $', Article of the

UMPMLs by-la"s, reads:

1ec( $'( emo+al of 6irectors and Committee Members( Any electeddirector or committee member may be remo+ed from o!ce for cause

by a ma>ority +ote of the members in good standing present at the

annual or special general assembly called for the purpose after ha+ing

been gi+en the opportunity to be heard at the assembly(

Knder the same article are found the requirements for the holding of

both the annual general assembly and a special general assembly(

ndubitably then, there is an established procedure for the remo+al of

directors and o!cers of cooperati+es( t is li/e"ise manifest that the

right to due process is respected by the e7press pro+ision on the

opportunity to be heard( ut e+en "ithout said pro+ision, petitioners

cannot be depri+ed of that right(


36/145

The procedure "as not follo"ed in this case( espondent 1ecretary of

Agriculture arrogated unto himself the po"er of the members of the

UMPM "ho are authori8ed to +ote to remo+e the petitioning

directors and o!cers( 4e cannot ta/e refuge under 1ection & of P(6(

5o( $'< "hich grants him authority to super+ise and regulate all

cooperati+es( This section does not gi+e him that right(

An administrati+e o!cer has only such po"ers as are e7pressly

granted to him and those necessarily implied in the e7ercise

thereof( These po"ers should not be e7tended by implication beyond

"hat may to necessary for their >ust and reasonable e7ecution(

1uper+ision and control include only the authority to: )a* act directly"hene+er a speci#c function is entrusted by la" or regulation to a

subordinateH )b* direct the performance of dutyH restrain the

commission of actsH )c* re+ie", appro+e, re+erse or modify acts and

decisions of subordinate o!cials or unitsH )d* determine priorities in the

e7ecution of plans and programsH and )e* prescribe standards,

guidelines, plans and programs( 1peci#cally, administrati+e super+ision

is limited to the authority of the department or its equi+alent to: )$*generally o+ersee the operations of such agencies and insure that they

are managed eecti+ely, e!ciently and economically but "ithout

interference "ith day-to-day acti+itiesH )=* require the submission of

reports and cause the conduct of management audit, performance

e+aluation and inspection to determine compliance "ith policies,

standards and guidelines of the departmentH )* ta/e such action as


37/145

may be necessary for the proper performance of o!cial functions,

including recti#cation of +iolations, abuses and other forms of mal-

administrationH );* re+ie" and pass upon budget proposals of such

agencies but may not increase or add to them(

The po"er to summarily disband the board of directors may not be

inferred from any of the foregoing as both P(6( 5o( $'< and the by-la"s

of the UMPM e7plicitly mandate the manner by "hich directors and

o!cers are to be remo+ed( The 1ecretary should ha+e /no"n better

than to disregard these procedures and rely on a mere petition by the

general membership of the UMPM and an on-going audit by

6epartment of Agriculture auditors in e7ercising a po"er "hich hedoes not ha+e, e7pressly or impliedly( e cannot concede to the

proposition of the 9!ce of the 1olicitor General that the 1ecretaryLs

po"er under paragraph )d*, 1ection & of P(6( 5o( $'< abo+e quoted to

suspend the operation or cancel the registration of any cooperati+e

includes the .milder authority of suspending o!cers and calling for the

election of ne" o!cers(0 Firstly, neither suspension nor cancellation

includes the ta/e-o+er and ouster of incumbent directors and o!cers,

other"ise the la" itself "ould ha+e e7pressly so stated( 1econdly, e+engranting that the la" intended such as postulated, there is

the requirement of a hearing( 5one "as conducted(

IRAO!O . P;ILIPPINE TRT; COMMISSION ("1"#


38/145

!. R. No. 19(93-. +ee2ber 7# ("1" ,CASE +I!EST/

T9PC: P9D1 9F T4D DJDCKT3D

FACT: D(9 5o( $ establishing the Philippine Truth Commission )PTC* of=@$@ "as signed by President Aquino( The said PTC is a mere branch

formed under the 9!ce of the President tas/ed to in+estigate reports

of graft and corruption committed by third-le+el public o!cers and

employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the

pre+ious administration and submit their #ndings

and recommendations to the President, Congress and the 9mbudsman(

4o"e+er, PTC is not a quasi->udicial body, it cannot ad>udicate,

arbitrate, resol+e, settle or render a"ards in disputes bet"een parties(ts >ob is to in+estigate, collect and asses e+idences gathered and

ma/e recommendations( t has subpoena po"ers but it has no po"er

to cite people in contempt or e+en arrest( t cannot determine for such

facts if probable cause e7ist as to "arrant the #ling of an information in

our courts of la"(

Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the D(9( on the grounds

that(

t +iolates separation of po"ers as it arrogates the po"er of Congress

to create a public o!ce and appropriate funds for its operationH

The pro+isions of oo/ , Chapter $@, 1ection $ of the Administrati+e

Code of $%&' cannot legitimi8e D(9( 5o( $ because the delegated


39/145

authority of the President to structurally reorgani8e the 9!ce of the

President to achie+e economy, simplicity, and e!ciency does not

include the po"er to create an entirely ne" o!ce "as ine7istent li/e

the Truth CommissionH

The D(9 illegally amended the Constitution "hen it made the Truth

Commission and +esting it the po"er duplicating and e+en e7ceeding

those of the 9!ce of the 9mbudsman and the 69?(

t +iolates the equal protection clause

11KD: 4DT4D 9 59T the said D(9 is unconstitutional(

KE5G: Qes, D(9 5o( $ should be struc/ do"n as it is +iolati+e of the

equal protection clause( The Chief D7ecuti+eLs po"er to create the Ad

hoc n+estigating Committee cannot be doubted( 4a+ing been

constitutionally granted full control of the D7ecuti+e 6epartment, to

"hich respondents belong, the President has the obligation to ensure

that all e7ecuti+e o!cials and employees faithfully comply "ith the

la"( ith A9 =%& as mandate, the legality of the in+estigation is

sustained( 1uch +alidity is not aected by the fact that the

in+estigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that

the former used the o!ces and facilities of the latter in conducting the

inquiry(


40/145

AN!AN!CO v. CASTILLO

The po"er of control of the President e7tends to the po"er to .alter or

modify or nullify or set aside "hat a subordinate o!cer had done in the

performance of his duties and to substitute the >udgment of theOPresident for that of the Osubordinate o!cer(0 This may be e7tended

to the po"er to .in+estigate, suspend or remo+e o!cers and

employees "ho belong to the e7ecuti+e department if they are

presidential appointees or do not belong to the classi#ed ser+ice for

such can be >usti#ed that the po"er to remo+e is inherent to the po"er

to appoint(0 The same cannot be done to o!cers or employees "ho

belong to the classi#ed ser+ice( The procedure laid do"n in the Ci+il1er+ice Act of $%


41/145

concentrates but could not ta/e action onthe request as it "as not in

their >urisdiction( Ang-Angco telephoned the 1ecretary of Finance

"hoe7pressed his appro+al of the release on the basis of said

certi#cate( Collector Ang-Angco #nally releasedthe concentrates( hen

Commissioner of Customs learned of the release he #led an

administrati+ecomplaint against Collector of Customs Ang-Angco( For

three years Ang-Angco had been discharging theduties of his o!ce(

Then, D7ecuti+e 1ecretary Castillo, by authority of the President,

rendered his >udgment against the petitioner(

ssue:

hether the President is empo"ered to remo+e o!cers and employeesin the classi#ed ci+ilser+ice(

4olding:

The President does not ha+e the po"er to remo+e o!cers or

employees in the classi#ed ci+il ser+ice(

t is clear that under the present pro+ision of the Ci+il 1er+ice Act of

$%urisdiction ofthe Commissioner of Ci+il 1er+ice, and ha+ing been depri+ed of the

procedure laid do"n in connection "ith the in+estigation and

disposition of his case, itmay be said that he has been depri+ed of due

process as guaranteed by said la"(The Po"er of control of the

President may e7tend to the Po"er to in+estigate, suspend or


42/145

remo+eo!cers and employees "ho belong to the e7ecuti+e

department if they are presidential appointees but not"ith regard to

those o!cers or employees "ho belong to the classi#ed ser+ice for as

to them that inherentpo"er cannot be e7ercised(This is in line "ith the

pro+ision of our Constitution "hich says that the Congress may by

la"+est the appointment of the inferior o!cers, in the President alone,

in the courts, or in heads of department )Article 3, 1ection $@ O,

Constitution*( ith regard to these o!cers "hose appointmentsare

+ested on heads of departments, Congress has pro+ided by la" for a

procedure for their remo+alprecisely in +ie" of this constitutional

authority( 9ne such la" is the Ci+il 1er+ice Act of $%


43/145

declared 9rdinance 5o( ''%;, other"ise /no"n as the Manila e+enue

Code, null and +oid for non-compliance "ith the prescribed procedure

in the enactment of ta7 ordinances and for containing certain

pro+isions contrary to la" and public policy( n a petition for certiorari

#led by the City of Manila, the TC declared 1ection $&' of the Eocal

Go+ernment Code as unconstitutional because of its +esture in the

1ecretary of ?ustice of the po"er of control o+er local go+ernments in

+iolation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution

and of the speci#c pro+ision therein conferring on the President of the

Philippines only the po"er of super+ision o+er local go+ernments( n

this case, ?udge odolfo C( Palattao declared 1ection $&'

unconstitutional insofar as it empo"ered the 1ecretary of ?ustice tore+ie" ta7 ordinances( 4e cited the familiar distinction bet"een control

and super+ision, the #rst being the po"er of an o!cer to alter or

modify or set aside "hat a subordinate o!cer had done in the

performance of his duties and to substitute the >udgment of the former

for the latter, "hile the second is the po"er of a superior o!cer to

see to it that lo"er o!cers perform their functions in accordance "ith

la"(011KD:

hether or not 1ection $&' of the Eocal Go+ernment Code is

constitutional and "hether or not the 1ecretary of ?ustice can e7ercise

control, rather than super+ision, o+er the local go+ernment


44/145

4DE6:

Qes( 1ection $&' authori8es the 1ecretary of ?ustice to re+ie" only the

constitutionality or legality of the ta7 ordinance and, if "arranted, to

re+o/e it on either or both of these grounds( hen he alters ormodi#es or sets aside a ta7 ordinance, he is not also permitted to

substitute his o"n >udgment for the >udgment of the local go+ernment

that enacted the measure( 1ecretary 6rilon did set aside the Manila

e+enue Code, but he did not replace it "ith his o"n +ersion of "hat

the Code should be( hat he found only "as that it "as illegal( All he

did in re+ie"ing the said measure "as determine if the petitioners

"ere performing their functions in accordance "ith la", that is, "ith

the prescribed procedure for the enactment of ta7 ordinances and the

grant of po"ers to the city go+ernment under the Eocal Go+ernment

Code( As the court sees it, that "as an act not of control but of mere

super+ision( 1ecretary 6rilon set aside the Manila e+enue Code only

on t"o grounds, to "it, the inclusion therein of certain ultra +ires

pro+isions and non-compliance "ith the prescribed procedure in its

enactment( These grounds aected the legality, not the "isdom or

reasonableness, of the ta7 measure(

As regards the issue of non-compliance "ith the prescribed procedure

in the enactment of the Manila e+enue Code, the Court has carefully

e7amined e+ery one of the e7hibits and agree "ith the trial court that

the procedural requirements ha+e indeed been obser+ed( 5otices of

the public hearings "ere sent to interested parties( The minutes of the


45/145

hearings are found in the e7hibits and such sho" that the proposed

ordinances "ere published(

$OSE +. ILLENA# 5etitioner#

vs.

T;E SECRETAR: O* T;E INTERIOR# res5ondent.

Facts: The 6i+ision of n+estigation of the 6epartment of ?ustice upon

request of the 1ecretary of nterior )respondent* conducted an inquiry

of the conduct Mayor ?ose 3illena( As a result, the latter "as found to

ha+e committed bribery, e7tortion, malicious abuse of authority and

unauthori8ed practice of la" profession( The respondent recommended

to the President of the Philippines to suspend the petitioner so as topre+ent possible coercion of the "itnesses( The recommendation "as

+erbally appro+ed by the President( Thereafter, the 1ecretary of the

nterior mo+e to suspend Mayor 3illena from o!ce and instructed the

Pro+incial Go+ernor to inform the petitioner of the said suspension(

The respondent "rote the petitioner a letter specifying the many


46/145

charges against him and notifying him of the designation of a special

in+estigator to in+estigate the charges(

Mayor ?ose 3illena #led an action of prohibition "ith a prayer for

preliminary in>unction against 1ecretary of the interior to suspend the

in+estigation against him( Mayor ?ose 3illena contends that the

1ecretary of the nterior has no >urisdiction or authority to suspend and

to gi+e administrati+e charges against him since the po"er to suspend

municipal electi+e o!cials is the duty of other go+ernment agencies,

"hich in this case is the Go+ernor- pursuant to section =$&& of the

Administrati+e Code( Furthermore, e+en if the respondent 1ecretary ofthe nterior has po"er of super+ision o+er local go+ernments, that

po"er, according to the constitution, must be e7ercised in accordance

"ith the pro+isions of la" and the pro+isions of la" go+erning trials of

charges against electi+e municipal o!cials are those contained in

section =$&& of the Administrati+e Code as amended(

ssue: hether or not the 1ecretary of the nterior has >urisdiction or

authority to suspend and order in+estigation o+er ?ose 3illena(


47/145

uling: Qes, the respondent has the >urisdiction to suspend the

petitioner although there is no clear and e7press grant of po"er to the

former to suspend the latter "ho is under in+estigation( 9n the

contrary, the po"er appears lodged in the pro+incial go+ernor by

section =$&& of the Administrati+e Code "hich pro+ides that the

pro+incial go+ernor shall recei+e and in+estigate complaints made

under oath against municipal o!cers for neglect of duty, oppression,

corruption or other form of maladministration of o!ce, and con+iction

by #nal >udgment of any crime in+ol+ing moral turpitude( The fact,

ho"e+er, that the po"er of suspension is e7pressly granted by section

=$&& of the Administrati+e Code to the pro+incial go+ernor does not

mean that the grant is necessarily e7clusi+e and precludes the1ecretary of the nterior from e7ercising a similar po"er( This is under

the 6octrine of uali#ed Political Agency "hich pro+ides that .the acts

of the department secretaries, performed and promulgated in the

regular course of business, are, unless disappro+ed or reprobated by

the President, presumpti+ely the acts of the President(0 The po"er to

suspend may be e7ercised by the President( t follo"s that the heads of

the 6epartment may also e7ercise the same, unless the la" required

the President to act personally or that situation demanded him so,

because the heads of the departments are assistants and agents of the

President(

LACSONMA!ALLANES CO.# INC.# 5&ainti@a55e&&ant#

vs.


48/145

$OSE PAO# ;ON. $AN PA$O# in >is a5ait' as EBe%tiveSeretar'# and ;ON. $AN +E !. RO+RI!E# in >is a5ait' asSeretar' oD A0ri%&t%re and Nat%ra& Reso%res# deDendants

a55e&&ees.

FACT1: ?ose Magallanes "as permitted to use and occupy a land used

for pasture in 6a+ao( The said land "as a forest 8one "hich "as later

declared as an agricultural 8one( Magallanes then ceded his rights to

Eacson-Magallanes Co(, nc( )EMC* of "hich he is a co-o"ner(

?ose PaVo "as a farmer "ho asserted his claim o+er the same piece ofland( The 6irector of Eands denied PaVoLs request( The 1ecretary of

Agriculture li/e"ise denied his petition hence it "as ele+ated to the

9!ce of the President(

D7ecuti+e 1ecretary ?uan Pa>o ruled in fa+or of PaVo( EMC a+erred that

the earlier decision of the 1ecretary of Agriculture is already conclusi+e

hence beyond appeal( 4e also a+erred that the decision of theD7ecuti+e 1ecretary is an undue delegation of po"er( The Constitution,

EMC asserts, does not contain any pro+ision "hereby the presidential

po"er of control may be delegated to the D7ecuti+e 1ecretary( t is

argued that it is the constitutional duty of the President to act

personally upon the matter(


49/145

11KD: hether or not the po"er of control may be delegated to the

D7ecuti+e 1ecretary(

4DE6: Qes( t is true that as a rule, the President must e7ercise his

constitutional po"ers in person( 4o"e+er, the president may delegate

certain po"ers to the D7ecuti+e 1ecretary at his discretion( The

president may delegate po"ers "hich are not required by the

Constitution for him to perform personally( The reason for this

allo"ance is the fact that the resident is not e7pected to perform in

person all the multifarious e7ecuti+e and administrati+e functions( The

o!ce of the D7ecuti+e 1ecretary is an au7iliary unit "hich assists the

President( The rule "hich has thus gained recognition is that .under

our constitutional setup the D7ecuti+e 1ecretary "ho acts for and in

behalf and by authority of the President has an undisputed >urisdiction

to a!rm, modify, or e+en re+erse any order0 that the 1ecretary of

Agriculture and 5atural esources, including the 6irector of Eands, may

issue(

The act of the D7ecuti+e 1ecretary, acting as the alter ego of the

President, shall remain +alid until re+ersed, disappro+ed, or reprobated

by the President( n this case, no reprobation "as made hence the

decision granting the land to PaVo cannot be re+ersed(


50/145

CIT: O* ILI!AN v +IRECTOR O* LAN+S

$( President issued Pro&a2ation 33-:a( ithdra"ing certain parcels of public land in ligan from sale or

settlement andb( eser+ing such for the use of 5PC )5atLl Po"er Corporation*

=( y +irtue of said proclamation, 5PC constructed a fertili8er plantnamed .Maria Cristina0

( Eater, 5PC:a( 1old the fertili8er plant to .Marcelo Tire and ubber Corp0 "ith

all the machineries, right of occupancy, and use of land

b( Co+enanted to collaborate "ith 6A5 in facilitating sale andright to lease for at least =< years, the lands "here plant iserected

;( Proclamation =@ and $%& "ere issued:a( Pro. ("R e7cluding from operation of Proc( < certain areas

occupied by .Ma( Cristina0 and Dmployees 4ousing anddeclaring such lands for 9PD5 61P91T95

b( Pro. 19R changing the technical description of said areas )2lots*


51/145

'( President then issued Pro. 469R e7cluding from the reser+ationmade in fa+or to 5PC certain lands in ligan )Eot $, $-a, , and ;* and695AT5G said lands in fa+or of ligan City(

&( Mayor of ligan "rote to 6irector of Eands informing him that City is

the o"ner of said lands and foreshores in auction(%( KT no action "as ta/en on said request for e7clusion and so City

#led a complaint for in>unction in CF against 6irector( n>unctiontemporarily issued(

$@( Pending case, President Marcos issued Pro. 94 R e7cluding fromthe donation in Proc( ;2% certain lands )Eot $-a, =-a, and * anddeclaring same for open disposition(

$$( CF dismissed the complaint of City and dissol+ed in>unction(4ence, this appeal(

Iss%e95 President has the authority to grant a portion of publicdomain to any go+ernment li/e the City of ligan(

;e&dQD1

$( 1ection 2@ of Public Eand Act states that tracts of land can bedisposed of by grant, donation or transfer made to a pro+ince,municipality, branch, or subdi+ision of go+ernment for purposesconduci+e to public interest(

a( ho has authority to donate 1ecretary of Agriculture and5ational esources through 6irector of Eands )1ec 2@*

=( Can President donate instead of 1ecretary and 6irector QD1


52/145

a( 6irector has direct e7ecuti+e control of lands )e(g( lease, sale,concession, disposition of land of public domain*

b( 6irector 1K?DCT to control of 1ecretary of Agriculture(c( 1ecretaryLs control is 1K?DCT to control of PD16D5T

d( Knder Art 3 1ec $': President shall control AEE e7ecuti+edepartments, bureaus, and o!ces(

e( 4ence, President has the same authority to dispose of portionsof public domain as his subordinates(

f( 1uch authority to dispose is also granted to the President under1ection 2% of the Public Eand Act(

( 1ince, President has the authority to donate lands of public domainfor residential, commercial, W industrial purposes( uestionedProclamation ;2% is 3AE6 and binding:

a( 9"nership of lands no" +ested in City of ligan(b( Mayor of City upon proclamation immediately had the lots

sur+eyed and entered into negotiation "ith 5ational n+estmentand 6e+elopment Corp( and those interested in de+eloping theCoco-Chemical Plant in order to accelerate economic e7pansionin the City(

;( Proclamation %; is 5KEE and 396 as said parcels had beensegregated and had become property of ligan(


53/145

Eope8 family is the o"ner of = tele+ision stations, namely: Channels =

and ;, "hich they ha+e operated through the A1-C5 roadcasting

Corporation

hen martial la" "as declared on 1ept =$, $%'=, Ch( ; "as closed bythe military and its facilities "ere ta/en o+er by Uanlaon roadcasting

1ystem )U1* "hich operated it as a commercial T3 station

n $%'&, U1 "as ta/en o+er by the 5ational Media Production Center

)5MPC*, "hich operated it under Maharli/a roadcasting 1ystem T3 ;

)M1-;*

After the February $%&2 Ddsa e+olution, the PCGG sequestered the T3

stations and the 9!ce of Media Aairs too/ o+er the operation of Ch( ;

9n( April $', $%&2, the Eope8 family requested Pres( Aquino to order to

return to them Chs( = and ;

9n 9ctober $& $%&2, Ch = "as returned to the Eope8 family

Kpon the Eope8 familySs request, the respondent D7ecuti+e 1ecretary,

by the authority of the President, entered into "ith A1-C5,represented by its Pres( Dugenio Eope8, ?r(, an Agreement to Arbitrate

Arbitration Committee "as created composed of Atty( Catalino

Macaraig, ?r(, for P and Atty( Pastor del osario for A1-C5, and

retired ?ustice 3icente Abad 1antos as Chairman


54/145

ssue:

5ote: There "asnSt e7actly an issue, as the court dismissed the case

because the petitioners did not ha+e locus standi( f the need arises,

"ould say the issue is hether or not the Agreement to Arbitrate, asan alternati+e to a la"suit against the 1tate, is +alidH to "hich, the

ans"er is yes( Dither "ay, Sll >ust enumerate belo" the courtSs

statements regarding the e7propriation topic(

The D7ecuti+e 1ecretary, in entering into the Agreement to Arbitrate,

"as acting for and in behalf of the President "hen he signed it( 4ence,

the aforesaid agreement is +alid and binding upon the epublic of the

Philippines(

here the go+ernment ta/es property from a pri+ate lando"ner for

public use "ithout going through the legal process of e7propriation or

negotiated sale, the aggrie+ed party may properly maintain a suit

against the go+ernment "ithout thereby +iolating the doctrine of

go+ernmental immunity from suit "ithout its consent(

The go+ernmentSs immunity cannot ser+e as an instrument forperpetrating an in>ustice to a citi8en(

5ote: n a separate opinion, ?ustice Feliciano remar/s that the abo+e

comments as obiter dicta(


55/145

NATIONAL MARudice to his reinstatement in the5AMAC9 and to all bene#ts to "hich he "ould ha+e been entitled to(Ari+e appealed the decision to the President of the Philippines(D7ecuti+e 1ecretary )presumably acting for the President* reinstated

Ari+e to his former position( 4e pointed out that the order of the5AMAC9 stopping the deli+ery of imported commodities under thetrade assistance program "as subsequently declared illegal by the 1C

on the ground that the order "as a +iolation of the contract of sale( t"ould be improper to hold Ari+e administrati+ely liable for his failure tocomply "ith said order(

5AMAC9 as/ed for reconsideration "ith the President( tcontended that the 9!ce of the President had no >urisdiction to re+ie"any decision of the 5AMAC9 oard remo+ing, suspending, ordisciplining any of its subordinate employees because the 5AMAC9


56/145

charter )A $;


57/145

$OSE MON+ANO vs. *ERNAN+O SILOSA

!.R. No. L77". Ma' 3"# 19--.)

Facts:

The petitioner is the duly elected and quali#ed mayor of the

municipality of Mainit, pro+ince of 1urigao( 9n =' February $%


58/145

hether the Assistant D7ecuti+e 1ecretary, as agent of the Chief

D7ecuti+e, can e7ercise control o+er local go+ernments, most

speci#cally a to"n mayor in this case(

4eld:

5o( The department head as agent of the President has direct

control and super+ision o+er all bureaus and o!ces under his

>urisdiction as pro+ided for in section '%)c* of the e+ised

Administrati+e Code, but he does not ha+e the same control of localgo+ernments as that e7ercised by him o+er bureaus and o!ces under

his >urisdiction( Ei/e"ise, his authority to order the in+estigation of any

act or conduct of any person in the person in the ser+ice of any bureau

of o!ce under his department is con#ned to bureaus under his

>urisdiction and does not e7tend to local go+ernments o+er the

President e7ercises only general super+ision as may be pro+ided by

la" )section $@, paragraph $, Article 3 of the Constitution*( f thepro+isions of section '%)c* of the e+ised Administrati+e Code are to be

construed as conferring upon the corresponding department head

direct control, direction, and super+ision o+er all local go+ernments

and that for that reason he may order the in+estigation of an o!cial of

a local go+ernment for malfeasance in o!ce, such interpretation "ould


59/145

be contrary to the pro+isions of paragraph $, section $@, article 3, of

the Constitution(

n administrati+e la" super+ision means o+erseeing or the po"er

or authority of an o!cer to see that subordinate o!cers perform theirduties( f the latter fail or neglect to ful#ll them the former may ta/e

such action or step as prescribed by la" to ma/e them perform these

duties( Control, on the other hand, means the po"er of an o!cer to

alter or modify or nullify or set aside "hat a subordinate o!cer had

done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the >udgment

of the former for that of the latter(

The Congress has e7pressly and speci#cally lodged the pro+incialsuper+ision o+er municipal o!cials in the pro+incial go+ernor "ho is

authori8ed to recei+e and in+estigate complaints made under oath

against municipal o!cers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or

other form of maladministration of o!ce, and con+iction by #nal

>udgment of any crime in+ol+ing moral turpitude( = And if the charges

are serious, he shall submit "ritten charges touching the matter to

the pro+incial board, furnishing a copy of such charges to the accused

either personally or by registered mail, and he may in such case

suspend the o!cer )not being the municipal treasurer* pending action

by the board, if in his opinion the charge be one aecting the o!cial

integrity of the o!cer in question( 1ection &2 of the e+ised

Administrati+e Code adds nothing to the po"er of super+ision to be

e7ercised by the 6epartment 4ead o+er the administration of ( ( (


60/145

municipalities ( ( ( f it be construed that it does and such additional

po"er is the same authority as that +ested in the 6epartment 4ead by

section '% )c* of the e+ised Administrati+e Code, then such additional

po"er must be deemed to ha+e been abrogated by section $@)$*,

Article 3, of the Constitution(

SECTION 1

. Rando&D +avid vs President !&oria Maa5a0a&Arro'o

,!.R. No. 171396# Ma' 3# (""6/

FACT1:

9n February =;, =@@2, President Arroyo issued PP 5o( $@$' declaring a

state of emergency, thus:


61/145

59, T4DDF9D, , Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the

epublic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines, Ocalling-out po"er by +irtue of the po"ers

+ested upon me by 1ection $&, Article ' of the Philippine Constitution

"hich states that: XYZThe President( ( ( "hene+er it becomes

necessary, ( ( ( may call out )the* armed forces to pre+ent or

suppress( ( (rebellion( ( (,XYand in my capacity as their Commander-

in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to

maintain la" and order throughout the Philippines, pre+ent or suppress

all forms of la"less +iolence as "ell as any act of insurrection or

rebellion Ota/e care po"er and to enforce obedience to all the la"s

and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by mepersonally or upon my directionH and Opo"er to ta/e o+er as pro+ided

in 1ection $', Article $= of the Constitution do hereby declare a 1tate

of 5ational Dmergency(

9n the same day, PGMA issued G(9( 5o( < implementing PP$@$',

directing the members of the AFP and P5P to immediately carry out

the necessary and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and

pre+ent acts of terrorism and la"less +iolence(

6a+id, et al( assailed PP $@$' on the grounds that )$* it encroaches on

the emergency po"ers of CongressH )=* it is a subterfuge to a+oid the


62/145

constitutional requirements for the imposition of martial la"H and )* it

+iolates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press, of

speech and of assembly( They alleged .direct in>ury0 resulting from

.illegal arrest0 and .unla"ful search0 committed by police operati+es

pursuant to PP $@$'(

6uring the hearing, the 1olicitor General argued that the issuance of

PP $@$' and G9 < ha+e factual basis, and contended that the intent of

the Constitution is to gi+e full discretionary po"ers to the President in

determining the necessity of calling out the armed forces( The

petitioners did not contend the facts stated b the 1olicitor General(

11KD: hether or not the PP $@$' and G(9( 5o( < is constitutional(

KE5G:

The operati+e portion of PP $@$' may be di+ided into three important

pro+isions, thus:

First pro+ision: .by +irtue of the po"er +ested upon me by 1ection $&,Artilce 3 [ do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines,

to maintain la" and order throughout the Philippines, pre+ent or

suppress all forms of la"less +iolence as "ell any act of insurrection or

rebellion0


63/145

1econd pro+ision: .and to enforce obedience to all the la"s and to

all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or

upon my directionH0

Third pro+ision: .as pro+ided in 1ection $', Article J of theConstitution do hereby declare a 1tate of 5ational Dmergency(0

PP $@$' is partially constitutional insofar as pro+ided by the #rst

pro+ision of the decree(

First Pro+ision: Calling 9ut Po"er(

The only criterion for the e7ercise of the calling-out po"er is that

."hene+er it becomes necessary,0 the President may call the armed

forces .to pre+ent or suppress la"less +iolence, in+asion or rebellion(0

)ntegrated ar of the Philippines +( Namora*

President ArroyoLs declaration of a .state of rebellion0 "as merely an

act declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, a

declaration allo"ed under 1ection ;, Chap =, / of the e+isedAdministration Code( 1uch declaration, in the "ords of 1anla/as, is

harmless, "ithout legal signi#cance, and deemed not "ritten( n these

cases, PP $@$' is more than that( n declaring a state of national

emergency, President Arroyo did not only rely on 1ection $&, Article 3

of the Constitution, a pro+ision calling on the AFP to pre+ent or


64/145

suppress la"less +iolence, in+asion or rebellion( 1he also relied on

1ection $', Article J, a pro+ision on the 1tateLs e7traordinary po"er

to ta/e o+er pri+ately-o"ned public utility and business aected "ith

public interest( ndeed, PP $@$' calls for the e7ercise of an a"esome

po"er( 9b+iously, such Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless(

To clarify, PP $@$' is not a declaration of Martial Ea"( t is merely an

e7ercise of President ArroyoLs calling-out po"er for the armed forces to

assist her in pre+enting or suppressing la"less +iolence(

1econd Pro+ision: The Ta/e Care Po"er(

The second pro+ision pertains to the po"er of the President to ensure

that the la"s be faithfully e7ecuted( This is based on 1ection $',

Article 3 "hich reads:

1DC( $'( The President shall ha+e control of all the e7ecuti+e

departments, bureaus, and o!ces( 4e shall ensure that the la"s be

faithfully e7ecuted(

This Court rules that the assailed PP $@$' is unconstitutional insofar as

it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate .decrees(0

Eegislati+e po"er is peculiarly "ithin the pro+ince of the Eegislature(

1ection $, Article 3 categorically states that .Othe legislati+e po"er

shall be +ested in the Congress of the Philippines "hich shall consist of


65/145

a 1enate and a 4ouse of epresentati+es(0 To be sure, neither Martial

Ea" nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can >ustify

President ArroyoLs e7ercise of legislati+e po"er by issuing decrees(

Third Pro+ision: The Po"er to Ta/e 9+er

6istinction must be dra"n bet"een the PresidentLs authority to

declare.a state of national emergency0 and to e7ercise emergency

po"ers( To the #rst, 1ection $&, Article 3 grants the President such

po"er, hence, no legitimate constitutional ob>ection can be raised( ut

to the second, manifold constitutional issues arise(

Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency po"ers( This is

e+ident in the tenor of 1ection = )=*, Article 3 authori8ing it to

delegate such po"ers to the President( Certainly, a body cannot

delegate a po"er not reposed upon it( 4o"e+er, /no"ing that during

gra+e emergencies, it may not be possible or practicable for Congress

to meet and e7ercise its po"ers, the Framers of our Constitution

deemed it "ise to allo" Congress to grant emergency po"ers to the

President, sub>ect to certain conditions, thus:

)$* There must be a "ar or other emergency(

)=* The delegation must be for a limited period only(

)* The delegation must be sub>ect to such restrictions as the

Congress may prescribe(


66/145

);* The emergency po"ers must be e7ercised to carry out a national

policy declared by Congress(

1ection $', Article J must be understood as an aspect of the

emergency po"ers clause( The ta/ing o+er of pri+ate businessaected "ith public interest is >ust another facet of the emergency

po"ers generally reposed upon Congress( Thus, "hen 1ection $'

states that the .the 1tate may, during the emergency and under

reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily ta/e o+er or direct the

operation of any pri+ately o"ned public utility or business aected "ith

public interest,0 it refers to Congress, not the President( 5o", "hether

or not the President may e7ercise such po"er is dependent on "hether

Congress may delegate it to him pursuant to a la" prescribing the

reasonable terms thereof(

Follo"ing our interpretation of 1ection $', Article J, in+o/ed by

President Arroyo in issuing PP $@$', this Court rules that such

Proclamation does not authori8e her during the emergency to

temporarily ta/e o+er or direct the operation of any pri+ately o"ned

public utility or business aected "ith public interest "ithout authority

from Congress(

Eet it be emphasi8ed that "hile the President alone can declare a

state of national emergency, ho"e+er, "ithout legislation, he has no

po"er to ta/e o+er pri+ately-o"ned public utility or business aected

"ith public interest( 5or can he determine "hen such e7ceptional


67/145

circumstances ha+e ceased( Ei/e"ise, "ithout legislation, the

President has no po"er to point out the types of businesses aected

"ith public interest that should be ta/en o+er( n short, the President

has no absolute authority to e7ercise all the po"ers of the 1tate under

1ection $', Article 3 in the absence of an emergency po"ers actpassed by Congress(

As of G(9( 5o(


68/145

n+o/ing his po"ers as Commander-in-Chief under 1ec $&, Art( 3 of

the Constitution, President Dstrada, in +erbal directi+e, directed the

AFP Chief of 1ta and P5P Chief to coordinate "ith each other for the

proper deployment and campaign for a temporary period only( The P

questioned the +alidity of the deployment and utili8ation of the Marinesto assist the P5P in la" enforcement(

11KD1:

$( The PresidentSs factual determination of the necessity of calling thearmed forces is sub>ect to >udicial re+ie"(

=( The calling of AFP to assist the P5P in >oint +isibility patrols +iolate

the constitutional pro+isions on ci+ilian supremacy o+er the military(

KE5G:

$( The po"er of >udicial re+ie" is set forth in 1ection $, Article 3 of

the Constitution, to "it:

1ection $( The >udicial po"er shall be +ested in one 1upreme Court and

in such lo"er courts as may be established by la"(


69/145

?udicial po"er includes the duty of the courts of >ustice to settle actual

contro+ersies in+ol+ing rights "hich are legally demandable and

enforceable, and to determine "hether or not there has been gra+e

abuse of discretion amounting to lac/ or e7cess of >urisdiction on the

part of any branch or instrumentality of the Go+ernment(

hen questions of constitutional signi#cance are raised, the Court can

e7ercise its po"er of >udicial re+ie" only if the follo"ing requisites are

complied "ith, namely: )$* the e7istence of an actual and appropriate

caseH )=* a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the

constitutional questionH )* the e7ercise of >udicial re+ie" is pleaded at

the earliest opportunityH and );* the constitutional question is the lis

mota of the case(

=( The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the

ci+ilian supremacy clause( The calling of the Marines in this case

constitutes permissible use of military assets for ci+ilian la"

enforcement( The participation of the Marines in the conduct of >oint

+isibility patrols is appropriately circumscribed( t is their responsibilityto direct and manage the deployment of the Marines( t is, li/e"ise,

their duty to pro+ide the necessary equipment to the Marines and

render logistical support to these soldiers( n +ie" of the foregoing, it

cannot be properly argued that military authority is supreme o+er

ci+ilian authority( Moreo+er, the deployment of the Marines to assist


70/145

the P5P does not unma/e the ci+ilian character of the police force(

5either does it amount to an .insidious incursion0 of the military in the

tas/ of la" enforcement in +iolation of 1ection


71/145

session to re+ie" the +alidity of the PresidentLs action( ut t"o days

later, or on 6ecember $=, =@@%, before Congress could act, the

President issued PP $%2, lifting martial la" and restoring the pri+ilege

of the "rit of habeas corpus(

( T4D 11KD1

6id the issuance of PP $%2, lifting martial la" and restoring the

Opri+ilege of the "rit in Maguindanao, render the issues moot and

academic

( T4D KE5G

OThe Court 61M11D6 the consolidated petitions on the ground that

they ha+e become M99T and ACA6DMC(QD1, the issuance of PP $%2, lifting martial la" and restoring the

Opri+ilege of the "rit in Maguindanao, rendered the issues moot and

academic


72/145

Prudence and respect for the co-equal departments of the go+ernment

dictate that the Court should be cautious in entertaining actions that

assail the constitutionality of the acts of the D7ecuti+e or the

Eegislati+e department( The issue of constitutionality, said the Court in

iraogo +( Philippine Truth Commission of =@$@, must be the +ery issueof the case, that the resolution of such issue is una+oidable(

The issue of the constitutionality of Proclamation $%


73/145

Consequently, although the Constitution reser+es to the 1upreme

Court the po"er to re+ie" the su!ciency of the factual basis of the

proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court

must allo" Congress to e7ercise its o"n re+ie" po"ers, "hich is

automatic rather than initiated( 9nly "hen Congress defaults in itse7press duty to defend the Constitution through such re+ie" should

the 1upreme Court step in as its #nal rampart( The constitutional

+alidity of the PresidentLs proclamation of martial la" or suspension of

the "rit of habeas corpus is #rst a political question in the hands of

Congress before it becomes a >usticiable one in the hands of the Court(

777 777 777

4ere, President Arroyo "ithdre" Proclamation $%oint

houses of Congress, "hich had in fact con+ened, could act on the

same( Consequently, the petitions in these cases ha+e become moot

and the Court has nothing to re+ie"( The lifting of martial la" and

restoration of the pri+ilege of the "rit of habeas corpus in

Maguindanao "as a super+ening e+ent that obliterated any >usticiablecontro+ersy(

T"o( 1ince President Arroyo "ithdre" her proclamation of martial la"

and suspension of the pri+ilege of the "rit of habeas corpus in >ust


74/145

eight days, they ha+e not been meaningfully implemented( The

military did not ta/e o+er the operation and control of local

go+ernment units in Maguindanao( The President did not issue any la"

or decree aecting Maguindanao that should ordinarily be enacted by

Congress( 5o indiscriminate mass arrest had been reported( Those"ho "ere arrested during the period "ere either released or promptly

charged in court( ndeed, no petition for habeas corpus had been #led

"ith the Court respecting arrests made in those eight days( The point

is that the President intended by her action to address an uprising in a

relati+ely small and sparsely populated pro+ince( n her >udgment, the

rebellion "as locali8ed and s"iftly disintegrated in the face of a

determined and amply armed go+ernment presence(777 777 777

777( n a real sense, the proclamation and the suspension ne+er too/

o( The Congress itself ad>ourned "ithout touching the matter, it

ha+ing become moot and academic(

SANLA


75/145

Facts: n the "ee hours of =' ?uly =@ some @@ >unior o!cers and

enlisted men of AFP, hea+ily armed stormed the 9a/"ood Premiere in

Ma/ati demanding for the resignation of the President, 1ecretary of

6efence and Chief of the P5P( y +irtue of Proclamation ;=' dated ='

?uly =@@, state of rebellion "as declared and General 9rder 5o ; ofthe same date, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine

5ational Police "ere directed to suppress and quell the rebellion

pursuant to 1ection $& Article 3 of the Constitution( The soldiers

returned to barrac/s on the same night and the declaration of state of

rebellion "as lifted on $ August =@@ by +irtue of Proclamation 5o ;


76/145

5e+ertheless, courts "ill decide a question, other"ise moot, if it is

capable of repetition yet e+ading re+ie"( The case at bar is one such

case( The mere declaration of a state of rebellion cannot diminish or

+iolate constitutionally protected rights( ndeed, if a state of martial

la" does not suspend the operation of the Constitution orautomatically suspend the pri+ilege of the "rit of habeas corpus, then

it is "ith more reason that a simple declaration of a state of rebellion

could not bring about these conditions( The presidential issuances

themsel+es call for the suppression of the rebellion "ith due regard to

constitutional rights

!ANON S. +E ILLA

11 SCRA 6(3F !.R. "-"F 3" $AN 199")

Facts: The ;$ petitioners alleged that the saturation dri+e or aerial

target 8oning that "ere conducted in their place )Tondo Manila* "ere

unconstitutional( They alleged that there is no speci#c target house to

besearch and that there is no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest

ser+ed( Most of the policemen are in their ci+ilian clothes and "ithout

nameplates or identi#cation cards( The residents "ere rudely rouse

from their sleep by banging on the "alls and "indo"s of their houses(

The residents "ere at the point of high-po"ered guns and herded li/e

co"s( Men "ere ordered to strip do"n to their briefs for the police to

e7amine their tattoo mar/s( The residents complained that theySre


77/145

homes "ere ransac/ed, tossing their belongings and destroying their

+aluables( 1ome of their money and +aluables had disappeared after

the operation( The residents also reported incidents of maulings, spot-

beatings and maltreatment( Those "ho "eredetained also suered

mental and physical torture to e7tract confessions and tacticalinformations( The respondents said that such accusations "ere all lies(

espondents contends that the Constitution grants to go+ernment the

po"er to see/ and cripple sub+ersi+e mo+ements for the maintenance

of peace in the state( The aerial target 8oning "ere intended to Iush

out sub+ersi+es and criminal elements coddled by the communities

"ere the said dri+es "ere conducted( They said that they ha+e

intelligently and carefully planned months ahead for the actualoperation and that local and foreign media >oined the operation to

"itness and record such e+ent(

ssue: hether or 5ot the saturation dri+e committed consisted of

+iolation of human rights(

4eld: t is not the police action per se "hich should be prohibited

rather it is the procedure used or the methods "hich oend e+en

hardened sensibilities (ased on the facts stated by the parties, it

appears to ha+e been no impediment to securing search "arrants or

"arrants of arrest before any houses "ere searched or indi+iduals

rouse

[CONSTI] Digested Cases Article VII Section 16 -23

Documents

Transcript of [CONSTI] Digested Cases Article VII Section 16 -23