Constitutional Law

POWERS OF THE CONGRESS

The powers of Congress are classified as follows:
1. Legislative power in general
2. Specific legislative powers
3. Non-legislative powers
4. Implied powers
5. Inherent powers.
Legislative power in general.
Legislative power in general refers to the power to enact laws, which includes the
power to alter or repeal them. Said power starts formally from the time a bill or a
proposed law is introduced by a member of the House of Representatives or a
Senator. Once approved by Congress, and the President, the said bill becomes
a law.
Specific legislative powers.
These are the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution. They are: power of
appropriation, power taxation and power of expropriation.
Non-legislative powers.
These are the powers which are not basically legislative in nature but which are
performed by Congress. Examples are power to propose amendments to the
Constitution, power to impeach, power to canvass presidential elections and
power to declare the existence of a state of war.
Implied powers.
These are the powers which are not expressly conferred by the Constitution but
which are implied from those expressly granted. Examples are: power to punish a
person in contempt during or in the course of legislative investigation and power
to issue summons and notices in connection with matters subject of its
investigation or inquiry.
Inherent powers
These are the powers which are inherent to the exercise of legislative powers like
the power to determine the rules of its proceedings.

Constitutional Law

1. To initiate the law-making process, the proposed bill is signed by its

author and filed with the Secretary of the either the Lower House (for
congressmen) or the Senate (for senators).
2. The bill will go through three readings. On the First Reading, the
number and title of the bill is read, followed by its referral to the appropriate
committee for study.
3. On the Second Reading, the bill is read in full along with amendments
proposed by the committee who studied it. The bill is then subjected to
debates and discussion by the members of the House where it was
filed. After extensive discussion, the bill will be voted on. If approved, it would
go through a third reading.
4. On Third Reading, the bill will be submitted for a final vote. If approved
again, it shall be transmitted to the other House for concurrence. The
other House will go through the same process of having three readings.
5. If the other House introduces amendments and the House from which
the bill originated does not approve of the amendments, the differences
will be settled by a meeting of the Conference Committees of both
Houses, whose recommendations will have to be approved by both
Houses.
6. Once the bill is approved, it is transmitted to the President of the
Philippines for signature. The President may then either sign the bill to
indicate approval, or veto the bill to indicate disapproval. If approved, the bill
officially becomes a law.
7. If the President decides to exercise his veto powers, the Congress
may re-pass the vetoed bill if two-thirds of both Houses, voting

Constitutional Law

separately, approve its enactment. In this case, the bill also officially
becomes a law.

Legislative limitation iv.

On Constitutional appellate
jurisdiction of SC (Section 30, Article VI) v. No law granting
title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Section 31,
Article VI) vi. No specific funds shall be appropriated or
paid for use or benefit of any religion, sect, etc., except
for priests, etc., assigned to
AFP, penal institutions, etc. (Sections
29, paragraph 2, Article VI)
Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Constitution) ii. On
Appropriations (Sections 25 and
29 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article VI) iii. On taxation (Sections 28
and 29, paragraph 3, Article VI)

DISQUALIFICATION
APPLICABLE WHEN
Cannot hold any other office or employment in the Govt or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries. (Sec. 13, Article VI)
During his term. If he does so, he forfeits his seat. (Sec. 13,
Article VI)
Legislators cannot be appointed to any office. (Sec.
13, Article VI)

Constitutional Law

If the office was created or the emoluments

thereof increased during the term for which he was
elected. (Sec. 13, Article VI)
Legislators cannot personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice, electoral tribunal, quasijudicial and
administrative bodies. (Sec. 14, Article VI)
During his term of office.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislators cannot be financially interested directly or

indirectly in any contract with or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision agency or instrumentality thereof, including the
GOCC or its subsidiary. (Sec. 14, Article VI)
During his term of office.
Legislators cannot intervene in any matter before any office
of the Govt. (Sec. 14, Article VI)
When it is for his pecuniary benefit or where he may
be called upon to act on account of his office
Incompatible office.
No legislator is allowed to hold office or positions in any government agency
including government-owned or controlled corporations without forfeiting his
seat in the Congress.
Forbidden office.
No members of the Congress shall be appointed to any office in the government
that has been crated or the emoluments thereof have been increased during his
term
i) In determining whether the Lambino proposal involves an
amendment or a revision, the Court considered the two-part
test. First, the quantitative test asks whether the proposed
change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly
the substance entirety of the Constitution by the deletion

Constitutional Law

or alteration of numerous provisions. The court examines

only the number of provisions affected and does not consider
the degree of the change. Second, the qualitative test,
which inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed
change in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
change will accomplish such far-reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
revision.

Rules on Succession.
a) Vacancy at the beginning of the term.
i)

Death or permanent disability of the President-elect:

Vice President-elect shall become President.

ii) President-elect fails to qualify: Vice President-elect

shall act as President until the President-elect'shall

have qualified.
iii) President shall not have been chosen: Vice President-

elect shall
act as President until a President shall have been chosen and
qualified.
iv) No President and Vice President chosen nor shall have

qualified,
or both shall have died or become permanently disabled: The
President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a
President or a Vice President shall have been chosen and
qualified. In the event of inability of the officials mentioned,
Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one
who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or
a Vice President shall have qualified.

a) Vacancy during the term:

Constitutional Law

Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or

resignation of
the President: Vice President shall become the President.
i)

ia) In Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Gloria MacapagalArroyo,

G. R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001, the Supreme Court declared
that the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as
confirmed by his

Constitutional Law

The Powers Of The President Of The Philippines

1. Executive power
2. Power of appointment
3. Power of removal
4. Power of control
5. Military powers
6. Pardoning power
7. Borrowing power
8. Diplomatic power
9. Budgetary power
10. Informing power
11. Other powers
f. PARDONING POWER
Q: What is the purpose of executive clemency? Can it be delegated?
A: Executive clemency is granted for the purpose
of relieving the harshness of the law or correcting mistakes in the administration
of justice. The power of executive clemency is a nondelegable
power and must be exercised by the President personally.
Note: Clemency is not a function of the judiciary; it is
an executive function. The grant is discretionary, and
may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the court, save only
when it contravenes its limitations.
Q: What is the scope of the Presidents pardoning power? (Forms of
executive clemency)
A: The President may grant the following: [ Pa R C Re A ] 1.
Pardons (conditional or plenary) 2. Reprieves 3. Commutations 4.
Remission of fines and forfeitures 5. Amnesty
Note: The first 4 require conviction by final judgment while amnesty does not.
Q: Are there limitations to the Presidents pardoning power?
A: Yes. It:

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011

Constitutional Law

1. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment.

2.Cannot be granted for violations of election laws without favorable
recommendations of the COMELEC.
3. Can be granted only after convictions by final judgment (except amnesty).
4. Cannot be granted in cases of civil or legislative contempt.
5. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability.

6.Cannot restore public offices forfeited

Kinds of pardons
1. Absolute pardon one extended without any conditions
2.Conditional pardon one under which the convict is required to comply with
certain requirements
3.Plenary pardon extinguishes all the penalties imposed upon the offender,
including accessory disabilities partial pardon does not extinguish all penalties
4. Partial pardon does not extinguish all
Pardon is an act of grace which exempts individual on whom it is
bestowed from punishment which the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed.

b. PROHIBITIONS, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

Q: What are the prohibitions attached to the President, Vice
President, Cabinet Members, and their deputies or assistants?
A: The President, VicePresident, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
deputies or assistants, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution
shall:
1.Shall not receive any other emolument
from the government or any other source (Sec. 6, Art. VII)
2. Shall not hold any other office or
employment during their tenure unless: a. Otherwise provided in the
Constitution (e.g. VP can be appointed as a Cabinet Member;
Sec. of Justice sits on Judicial and Bar Council) b. The positions are ex
officio and they do not receive any salary or other emoluments
therefor (e.g. Sec. of Finance is head of Monetary Board)

Constitutional Law

3. Shall not practice, directly or indirectly,

any other profession during their tenure
4. Shall not participate in any business
5. Shall not be financially interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government, including GOCCs
6. Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct of office
7.Shall avoid nepotism (Sec. 13, Art. VII)
Note: The spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil
degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as: a.
Members of the Constitutional Commissions b.
Office of the Ombudsman c. Secretaries d. Undersecretaries e.
Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including GOCCs and their
subsidiaries If the spouse, etc., was already in any of the
above offices at the time before his/her spouse became President,
he/she may continue in office. What is prohibited is appointment and
reappointment, not continuation in office.
Spouses, etc., can be appointed to the judiciary
and as ambassadors and consuls.

Q: Christian, the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel

(CPLC), was also appointed as Chairman of the
PCGG. May the two offices be held by the same person?
A: No. The two offices are incompatible. Without question, the PCGG is
an agency under the Executive Department. Thus, the actions of the
PCGG Chairman are subject to the review of the CPLC. (Public Interest
Group v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, June 30, 2006)

Q: What are the specific powers of the President?

A: He is the repository of all executive power, such as: 1.
Appointing power (Sec. 16, Art. VII) 2. Power of control over all executive
departments, bureaus and offices (Sec. 17, Art. VII) 3. CommanderinChief
powers (callingout power, power to place the Philippines under martial law,
and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
4. Pardoning power (Sec. 19, Art. VII) 5. Borrowing power (Sec. 20, Art. VII) 6.
Diplomatic/Treatymaking power (Sec. 21, Art. VII) 7.
Budgetary power (Sec. 22, Art. VII) 8. Informing power (Sec. 23, Art. VII) 9.

Constitutional Law

10

Veto power (Sec. 27, Art. VI) 10. Power of general supervision over local
governments (Sec. 4, Art. X) 11. Power to

Constitutional Law

11

Constitutional Law

12

The term grave abuse of discretion is

defined as a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner because of passion or hostility

Constitutional Law

13

A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION calls upon the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies
wherein there are rights (property or personal rights) involved which are legally demandable
and enforceable. It is one which is proper to be examined or decided in courts of justice
because its determination would not involve an encroachment upon the legislative or
executive power.
A POLITICAL QUESTION is one which under the Constitution is to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the validity or legality, of a particular measure or a
contested act.

In my more than 40 years of being a lawyer, I have never seen a busier Supreme Court than the present one, more
specifically the Supreme Court after the 1987 Constitution. So many controversial issues have seen their way into the
halls of this highest court in the land which in the past should have been initially resolved by the lower courts.
Government contracts and transactions of public interests have been brought for scrutiny at the first instance before
this supposed court of last resort by just about any individual or juridical entity having doubts as to their factual validity
and regularity. The emerging belief, though erroneous, is that the Supreme Court’s approval is required in
government deals or in any government action; a belief that has engendered the tendency to run to the Supreme
Court for all sorts of grievances or disagreements with certain government decisions. A case in point is the recent
filing by two lawyers of a petition questioning the controversial appointments of two commissioners to the recently
vacated posts in the Comelec.

To be sure, the Supreme Court seems to be "busier" now not because it wants to dip its finger into every pie. It really
has more work to do now because the 1987 Constitution expanded its power of judicial review not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government (Section 1, Article VIII). The new provision clearly "did not just grant the court the
power to do nothing". It gave the court greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent such grave abuse of
discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government (Estrada vs. Desierto 353 SCRA 491). But can
the Supreme Court use this expanded power to review the presidential power to appoint, particularly of the two
Comelec commissioners?

Under the "political question" doctrine arising from the principle of separation of powers, the Judicial Branch cannot
decide questions "in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government" (Taada vs. Cuenco 103 Phil.1068). In the matter of the power of appointment, there is no
question that it is executive in nature (Gov’t vs. Springer 50 Phil. 259). It is essentially a discretionary power of
the president performed according to "his best lights". (Luego vs. CSC 143 SCRA 327). The selection of the
appointee–taking into account the totality of his qualifications, including those abstract qualities that define his
personality – is the prerogative and a matter addressed solely to the discretion of the appointing authority
(Lapinid vs. CSC 197 SCRA 106). Thus both the Luego and Lapinid cases categorically declare that "this is a political
question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide".

Constitutional Law

14

The 1987 Constitution has indeed limited the scope of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of
judicial review. Thus in the case of the president’s appointing power, judicial review may be done if grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction has been committed. This means that the
president’s exercise of the discretionary power to appoint according to his best lights is subject to the condition
that the appointee "should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be
faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred" (Luego, Supra). If he
does not, then the appointment may be questioned as a grave abuse of discretion.

In the case of the two Comelec Commissioners, there is clearly no grave abuse of discretion, not even any abuse of
discretion. It is unquestionable that the President has the power to appoint them (Sec.1[2] Art. IX C, Sec. 16, Art. VII).
Apparently, nobody has also questioned their qualifications for the position fixed by the Constitution (Sec.1[1] Art. IX
C). Questions have been raised only as to their character and personality and their alleged partisan inclinations which
have nothing to do with the minimum qualification requirements for the position. The Supreme Court should therefore
junk the petition for it merely raises issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of their appointment. The wisdom
or folly of their appointment, or any appointment for that matter, is the sole responsibility of the President to the
sovereign people. This is purely a political question.