Gonzales vs.

Macaraig “WHEREAS, Be it Resolved, as it is hereby Disapproved and/or Reduced by

Resolved, That the Senate express its Congress: No item of appropriation
Facts: sense that the veto by the President of recommended by the President in the
PETITION for prohibition/mandamus Section 55 of the GENERAL PROVISIONS of Budget submitted to Congress pursuant
assailing mainly the constitutionality or the General Appropriation Bill of 1989 to Article VII, Section 22 of the
legality of Presidential veto of Section 55. (H.B. No. 19186) is unconstitutional and, Constitution which has been disapproved
This constitutional controversy between therefore, void and without any force or reduced in this Act shall be restored or
the legislative and executive and effect; hence, the aforesaid Section increased by the use of appropriations
departments of government stemmed 55 remains; authorized for other purposes by
from Senate Resolution No. 381, adopted Gonzales, together w/ 22 other senators, augmentation. An item of appropriation
on 2 February 1989, assailed the constitutionality of Cory’s for any purpose recommended by the
“Authorizing and Directing the veto of Section 55 of the 1989 President in the Budget shall be deemed
Committee on Finance to Bring in the Appropriations Bill (Sec 55 FY ’89, and to have been disapproved by Congress if
Name of the Senate of the Philippines the subsequently of its counterpart Section 16 no corresponding appropriation for the
Proper Suit with the Supreme Court of the of the 1990 Appropriations Bill (Sec 16 FY specific purpose is provided in this Act.”
Philippines contesting the ’90). Gonzalez averred the following: We quote below the reason for the
Constitutionality of the Veto by the the President’s line-veto power as regards Presidential veto:
President of Special and General appropriation bills is limited to item/s and “The provision violates Section 25 (5) of
Provisions, particularly Section 55, of the does not cover provision/s; therefore, she Article VI of the Constitution. If allowed,
General Appropriation Bill of 1989 (H.B. exceeded her authority when she vetoed this Section would nullify not only the
No. 19186) and For Other Purposes.” Section 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) constitutional and statutory authority of
On 16 December 1988, Congress passed which are provision; the President, but also that of the
House Bill No. 19186, or the General when the President objects to a provision President of the Senate, the Speaker of
Appropriations Bill for the Fiscal Year 1989. of an appropriation bill, she cannot the House of Representatives, the Chief
As passed, it eliminated or decreased exercise the item-veto power but should Justice of the Supreme Court, and Heads
certain items included in the proposed veto the entire bill; of Constitutional Commissions, to
budget submitted by the President. the item-veto power does not carry with augment any item in the general
Pursuant to the constitutional provision on it the power to strike out conditions or appropriations law for their respective
the passage of bills, Congress presented restrictions for that would be legislation, in offices from savings in other items of their
the said Bill to the President for violation of the doctrine of separation of respective appropriations. A careful
consideration and approval. powers; and review of the legislative action on the
On 29 December 1988, the President the power of augmentation in Article VI, budget as submitted shows that in almost
signed the Bill into law, and declared the Section 25 [5] of the 1987 Constitution, all cases, the budgets of agencies as
same to have become Rep. Act No. has to be provided for by law and, recommended by the President, as well
6688. In the process, seven (7) Special therefore, Congress is also vested with the as those of the Senate, the House of
Provisions and Section 55, a “General prerogative to impose restrictions on the Representatives, and the Constitutional
Provision,” were vetoed. exercise of that power. Commissions, have been reduced. An
On 2 February 1989, the Senate, in the “SEC. 55. Prohibition Against the unwanted consequence of this provision
same Resolution No. 381 mentioned at Restoration or Increase of is the inability of the President, the
the outset, further expressed: Recommended Appropriations President of the Senate, Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Constitutional mandate that any specifically to some “particular
Justice of the Supreme Court, and the provision in the general appropriations bill appropriation” therein. The challenged
heads of Constitutional Commissions to shall relate specifically to some particular “provisions” fall short of this requirement.
augment any item of appropriation of appropriation therein and that any such Firstly, the vetoed “provisions” do not
their respective offices from savings in provision shall be limited in its operation relate to any particular or distinctive
other items of their respective to the appropriation to which it relates. appropriation. They apply generally to all
appropriations even in cases of calamity SC ruled that Congress cannot include in items disapproved or reduced by
or in the event of urgent need to a general appropriations bill matters that Congress in the Appropriations Bill.
accelerate the implementation of should be more properly enacted in Secondly, the disapproved or reduced
essential public services and separate legislation, and if it does that, items are nowhere to be found on the
infrastructure projects. the inappropriate provisions inserted by it face of the Bill. To discover them, resort
“Furthermore, this provision is inconsistent must be treated as “item,” which can be will have to be made to the original
with Section 12 and other similar vetoed by the President in the exercise of recommendations made by the President
provisions of this General Appropriations his item-veto power. The SC went one and to the source indicated by
Act.” step further and rules that even assuming petitioners themselves, i.e., the
The Solicitor General, as counsel for arguendo that “provisions” are beyond “Legislative Budget Research and
public respondents, counters that the the executive power to veto, and Section Monitoring Office” (Annex B-1 and B-2,
issue at bar is a political question beyond 55 (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) were Petition). Thirdly, the vetoed Sections are
the power of this Court to determine; that not “provisions” in the budgetary sense of more of an expression of Congressional
petitioners had a political remedy, which the term, they are “inappropriate policy in respect of augmentation from
was to override the veto; that Section 55 provisions” that should be treated as savings rather than a budgetary
is a “rider” because it is extraneous to the “items” for the purpose of the President’s appropriation. Consequently, Section 55
Appropriations Act and, therefore, merits veto power. (FY ’89) and Section 16 (FY ’90) although
the President’s veto But even assuming arguendo that labelled as “provisions,” are actually
provisions are beyond the executive inappropriate provisions that should be
ISSUE: power to veto, we are of the opinion that treated as items for the purpose of the
Whether or not the President exceeded Section 55 (FY ‘89) and Section 16 (FY ‘90) President’s veto power.
the item-veto power accorded by the are not provisions in the budgetary sense
Constitution. Or differently put, has the of the term. Article VI, Section 25 (2) of Gonzales v. Macaraig (G.R. No. 87636)
President the power to veto `provisions’ the 1987 Constitution provides: November 19, 1990 | 191 SCRA 133
of an Appropriations Bill. “Sec. 25 (2) No provision or enactment Neptali Gonzales, et al., petitioners
shall be embraced in the general Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., et al.,
HELD: appropriations bill unless it relates respondents
The restrictive interpretation urged by specifically to some particular
petitioners that the President may not appropriation therein. Any such provision FACTS:
veto a provision without vetoing the or enactment shall be limited in its
entire bill not only disregards the basic operation to the appropriation to which it President Corazon Aquino vetoed
principle that a distinct and severable relates.” Section 55 of the GAA for the fiscal year
part of a bill may be the subject of a Explicit is the requirement that a provision 1989 and Section 16 of the GAA for the
separate veto but also overlooks the in the Appropriations Bill should relate fiscal year 1990. The reason cited by
President Aquino was that both of these GAA were an attempt to overcome her
sections restrict or prevent the President, This constitutional mandate, also known earlier veto in 1990, President Aquino
the Senate President, the Speaker of the as the power of augmentation, finds issued the veto now challenged in this
House, the heads of the constitutional statutory basis in Sections 44 and 45 of PD petition.
commisions and the Chief Justice of the 1177, which authorizes the President to It turns out that PD 644 which repealed
SC from restoring or increasing items of use savings to augment any RA 1797 never became a valid law
appropriation recommended by the appropriation in the Executive absent its publication, thus there was no
President, which recommendations have Department. law. It follows that RA 1797 was still in
already been reduced or disapproved effect and HB 16297 was superfluous
by Congress through the assailed GAAs. Congress had the power to override the because it tried to restore benefits which
In effect, these sections nullify the veto on both sections by having a 2/3 were never taken away validly. The veto
statutory and constitutional authority of vote of approval by members of each of HB 16297 did not also produce any
the aforesaid officials to augment any House, but Congress did not choose to effect.
item in the GAA for their respective do so. At the same time, Section 55 of
offices from savings in other items of their GAA 1989 and Section 16 of GAA 1990 ISSUE:
appropriation. should not be construed as having Whether or not the veto of the President
repealed PD 1177, mainly because of certain provisions in the GAA of FY
ISSUE: implied repeals are frowned upon. 1992 relating to the payment of the
BENGZON VS. DRILON G.R. 103524 April adjusted pensions of retired Justices is
Whether or not the presidential veto on 15, 1992 208 SCRA 133 constitutional or valid.
Section 55 of the GAA for the fiscal year Gutierrez, J.:
1989 and Section 16 of the GAA for the HELD:
fiscal year 1990 is constitutional. FACTS: The veto of these specific provisions in the
Petitioners are retired justices of the GAA is tantamount to dictating to the
HELD: Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judiciary ot its funds should be utilized,
who are currently receiving pensions which is clearly repugnant to fiscal
Yes, the presidential veto on Section 55 of under RA 910 as amended by RA 1797. autonomy. Pursuant to constitutional
GAA for the fiscal year 1989 and Section President Marcos issued a decree mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy
16 of the GAA for the fiscal year 1990 is repealing section 3-A of RA 1797 which freedom in the disposition of the funds
constitutional. These sections were authorized the adjustment of the pension allocated to it in the appropriations law.
vetoed because they violate Section 5(5) of retired justices and officers and Any argument which seeks to remove
of Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which enlisted members of the AFP. PD 1638 special privileges given by law to former
grants the President, the President of the was eventually issued by Marcos which Justices on the ground that there should
Senate, the Speaker of the House, the provided for the automatic readjustment be no grant of distinct privileges or
heads of the Constitutional Commissions, of the pension of officers and enlisted “preferential treatment” to retired
and the CJ of the SC the authority to men was restored, while that of the Justices ignores these provisions of the
augment any item in the general retired justices was not. RA 1797 was Constitution and in effect asks that these
appropriations law for their respective restored through HB 16297 in 1990. When Constitutional provisions on special
offices from savings in other items of their her advisers gave the wrong information protections for the Judiciary be repealed.
appropriations. that the questioned provisions in 1992 The petition is granted and the
questioned veto is illegal and the Under the Constitution, the President Appropriations were vetoed by the
provisions of 1992 GAA are declared does not have the so-called pocket-veto President because a resolution by the
valid and subsisting. power, i.e., disapproval of a bill by Court providing for appropriations for
inaction on his part. The failure of the retired justices has been enacted. The
Veto Power of the President President to communicate his veto of any vetoed bill provided for the increase of
bill represented to him within 30 days the pensions of the retired justices of the
FACTS: On 15 Jan 1992, some provisions after the receipt thereof automatically Supreme Court, and the Court of
of the Special Provision for the Supreme causes the bill to become a law. Appeals as well as members of the
Court and the Lower Court’s General This rule corrects the Presidential practice Constitutional Commission.
Appropriations were vetoed by the under the 1935 Constitution of releasing
President because a resolution by the veto messages long after he should have Issue:
Court providing for appropriations for acted on the bill. It also avoids
retired justices has been enacted. The uncertainty as to what new laws are in whether the President may veto certain
vetoed bill provided for the increase of force. provisions of the General Appropriatons
the pensions of the retired justices of the When is it allowed? Act
Supreme Court, and the Court of The exception is provided in par (2),Sec
Appeals as well as members of the 27 of Art 6 of the Constitution which Held:
Constitutional Commission. grants the President power to veto any
particular item or items in an The act of the Executive in vetoing the
ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. The particular provisions is an exercise of a
President on that portion of the General veto in such case shall not affect the item constitutionally vested power. But even
Appropriations bill is constitutional. or items to which he does not object. as the Constitution grants the power, it
3 ways how a bill becomes a law. also provides limitations to its
HELD: The Justices of the Court have 1. When the President signs it exercise. The Executive must veto a bill in
vested rights to the accrued pension that 2. When the President vetoes it but the its entirety or not at all. He or she is,
is due to them in accordance to veto is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the therefore, compelled to approve into law
Republic Act 1797. The president has no members of each House; and the entire bill, including its undesirable
power to set aside and override the 3. When the president does not act upon parts. It is for this reason that the
decision of the Supreme Court neither the measure within 30 days after it shall Constitution has wisely provided the
does the president have the power to have been presented to him. “item veto power” to avoid inexpedient
enact or amend statutes promulgated by riders from being attached to an
her predecessors much less to the repeal Bengzon v. Drilon indispensable appropriation or revenue
of existing laws. The veto is G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992 measure. What was done by the
unconstitutional since the power of the Gutierrez, Jr., J. President was the vetoing of a provision
president to disapprove any item or items and not an item.
in the appropriations bill does not grant Facts:
the authority to veto part of an item and Doctrine: Pocket Veto Power
to approve the remaining portion of said On 15 Jan 1992, some provisions of the
item. Special Provision for the Supreme Court Under the Constitution, the President
NOTES: Pocket Veto Not Allowed and the Lower Court’s General does not have the so-called pocket-veto
power, i.e., disapproval of a bill by Facts: 2.) the conditions imposed by the
inaction on his part. The failure of the RA 7663 (former House bill No. 10900, the President in the implementation of
President to communicate his veto of any General Appropriations Bill of 1994) certain appropriations for the CAFGU’s,
bill represented to him within 30 days entitled “An Act Appropriating Funds for DPWH, and Nat’l Highway Authority.
after the receipt thereof automatically the Operation of the Government of the
causes the bill to become a law. Philippines from January 1 to December Issue:
1, 1994, and for other Purposes” was Whether or not the veto of the president
This rule corrects the Presidential practice approved by the President and vetoed on four special provisions is constitutional
under the 1935 Constitution of releasing some of the provisions. and valid?
veto messages long after he should have Petitioners assail the special provision
acted on the bill. It also avoids allowing a member of Congress to Held:
uncertainty as to what new laws are in realign his allocation for operational Special Provision on Debt Ceiling –
force. expenses to any other expense category Congress provided for a debt-ceiling.
claiming that it violates Sec. 25, Art 7 of Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing the
When is it allowed? the Constitution. Issues of constitutionality entire appropriation for debt service. The
were raised before the Supreme Court. said provisions are germane to & have
The exception is provided in par (2),Sec PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition direct relation w/ debt service. They are
27 of Art 6 of the Constitution which to declare unconstitutional and void a.) appropriate provisions & cannot be
grants the President power to veto any Art 16 on the Countrywide Development vetoed w/o vetoing the entire
particular item or items in an Fund and b.) The veto of the President of item/appropriation. VETO VOID.
appropriation, revenue or tariff bill. The the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the Special Provision on Revolving Funds for
veto in such case shall not affect the item GAA of 1994. SCU’s – said provision allows for the use of
or items to which he does not object. 16 members of the Senate sought the income & creation of revolving fund for
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition SCU’s. Provision for Western Visayas State
3 ways how a bill becomes a law: and mandamus against the Exec. Univ. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by
Secretary, the Sec of Dept of Budget and Pres. Other SCU’s enjoying the privilege
1. When the President signs it Management and the National Treasurer do so by existing law. Pres. merely acted
2. When the President vetoes it but the and questions: 1.) Constitutionality of the in pursuance to existing law. VETO VALID.
veto is overridden by 2/3 vote of all the conditions imposed by the President in Special Provision on Road Maintenance –
members of each House; and the items of the GAA of 1994 and 2.) the Congress specified 30% ratio fo works for
3. When the president does not act upon constitutionality of the veto of the special maintenance of roads be contracted
the measure within 30 days after it shall provision in the appropriation for debt according to guidelines set forth by
have been presented to him. services. DPWH. Vetoed by the Pres. w/o vetoing
Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the the entire appropriation. It is not an
235 SCRA 506 issuance of the writs of prohibition and inappropriate provision; it is not alien to
Philippine Constitution mandamus against the same the subj. of road maintenance & cannot
Association, petitioner respondents. Petitioners contest the be veoted w/o vetoing the entire
vs. constitutionality of: 1.) veto on four appropriation. VETO VOID.
Enriquez, respondent special provisions added to items in the Special Provision on Purchase of Military
GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and Equip. – AFP modernization, prior
approval of Congress required before Republic Act No. 7663, entitled "AN ACT
release of modernization funds. It is the APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo
so-called legislative veto. Any prov. OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE sought the issuance of the writs of
blocking an admin. action in PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO prohibition and mandamus against the
implementing a law or requiring DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN same respondents. Petitioners contest the
legislative approval must be subj. of a HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR constitutionality of (1) the veto on four
separate law. VETO VALID. OTHER PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the special provisions added to items in the
Special Provision on Use of Savings for same day, the President delivered his GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and
AFP Pensions – allows Chief of Staff to Presidential Veto Message, specifying the (2) the conditions imposed by the
augment pension funds through the use provisions of the bill he vetoed and on President in the implementation of
of savings. According to the Consttution, which he imposed certain conditions. certain appropriations for the CAFGU’s,
only the Pres. may exercise such power DPWH, and National Highway Authority.
pursuant to a specific law. Properly Petitioners assail the special provision
vetoed. VETO VALID. allowing a member of Congress to ISSUE:
Special Provision on Conditions for de- realign his allocation for operational
activation of CAFGU’s – use of special expenses to any other expense category Whether or not the Congress have the
fund for the compensation of the said claiming that it violates Section 25, Article legal standing to question the validity of
CAFGU’s. Vetoed, Pres. requires his prior 7 of the Constitution. Issues of acts of the Executive.
approval. It is also an amendment to constitutionality were raised before the
existing law (PD No. 1597 & RA No. 6758). Supreme Court. HELD:
A provision in an appropriation act
cannot be used to repeal/amend Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to The Court held that the members of
existing laws. VETO VALID declare unconstitutional and void the Congress have the legal standing to
provision under Article 16 of the question the validity of acts of the
FACTS: Countrywide Development Fund and the Executive which injures them in their
House Bill No. 10900, the General veto of the President of the Special person or the institution of Congress to
Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994. which they belong. In the latter case, the
was passed and approved by both acts cause derivative but nonetheless
houses of Congress on December 17, There were 16 members of the Senate substantial injury which can be
1993. As passed, it imposed conditions who sought for the issuance of writs of questioned by members of Congress. In
and limitations on certain items of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus the absence of a claim that the contract
appropriations in the proposed budget against the Executive Secretary, the in question violated the rights of
previously submitted by the President. It Secretary of Department of Budget and petitioners or impermissibly intruded into
also authorized members of Congress to Management and the National Treasurer the domain of the Legislature, petitioners
propose and identify projects in the "pork and questions the constitutionality of the have no legal standing to institute the
barrels" allotted to them and to realign conditions imposed by the President in instant action in their capacity as
their respective operating budgets. the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as members of Congress.
the constitutionality of the veto of the ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS PURISIMA
On December 30, 1993, the President special provision in the appropriation for G.R. No. 166715 August 14, 2008
signed the bill into law, making it as debt services.
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (formerly hunters” as they will do their best only in enactment and approval of the law, the
AASJS)1OFFICERS/MEMBERS SAMSON S. consideration of such rewards. Thus, the creation of the congressional oversight
ALCANTARA, ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, system of rewards and incentives invites committee permits legislative
ROMEO R. ROBISO, RENE B. GOROSPE and corruption and undermines the participation in the implementation and
EDWIN R. SANDOVAL, petitioners, constitutionally mandated duty of these enforcement of the law.
vs. officials and employees to serve the
HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity people with utmost responsibility, Issues:
as Secretary of Finance, HON. GUILLERMO integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Whether or not the scope of the system
L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Petitioners also claim that limiting the of rewards and incentives limitation to
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal scope of the system of rewards and officials and employees of the BIR and
Revenue, and HON. ALBERTO D. LINA, in incentives only to officials and employees the BOC violates the constitutional
his Capacity as Commissioner of Bureau of the BIR and the BOC violates the guarantee of equal protection.
of Customs, respondents. constitutional guarantee of equal Whether or not there was an unduly
protection. There is no valid basis for delegation of power to fix revenue
Facts: classification or distinction as to why such targets to the President.
Petitioners seeks to prevent respondents a system should not apply to officials and Whether or not the doctrine of separation
from implementing and enforcing employees of all other government of powers has been violated in the
Republic Act (RA) 9335. R.A. 9335 was agencies. creation of a congressional oversight
enacted to optimize the revenue- In addition, petitioners assert that the law committee.
generation capability and collection of unduly delegates the power to fix
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and revenue targets to the President as it Discussions:
the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The law lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. The Court referred to the ruling
intends to encourage BIR and BOC While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA 9335 of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’
officials and employees to exceed their provides that BIR and BOC officials may Union, which states that “the guaranty of
revenue targets by providing a system of be dismissed from the service if their equal protection of the laws is not a
rewards and sanctions through the revenue collections fall short of the target guaranty of equality in the application of
creation of a Rewards and Incentives by at least 7.5%, the law does not, the laws upon all citizens of the State.
Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance however, fix the revenue targets to be The equal protection of the laws clause
Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all achieved. Instead, the fixing of revenue of the Constitution allows classification.
officials and employees of the BIR and targets has been delegated to the Classification in law, as in the other
the BOC with at least six months of President without sufficient standards. It departments of knowledge or practice, is
service, regardless of employment status. will therefore be easy for the President to the grouping of things in speculation or
Petitioners, invoking their right as fix an unrealistic and unattainable target practice because they agree with one
taxpayers filed this petition challenging in order to dismiss BIR or BOC personnel. another in certain particulars. A law is not
the constitutionality of RA 9335, a tax Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a invalid because of simple inequality. The
reform legislation. They contend that, by congressional oversight committee on very idea of classification is that of
establishing a system of rewards and the ground that it violates the doctrine of inequality, so that it goes without saying
incentives, the law “transforms the separation of powers. While the that the mere fact of inequality in no
officials and employees of the BIR and legislative function is deemed manner determines the matter of
the BOC into mercenaries and bounty accomplished and completed upon the constitutionality.
The Court has held that the standard is The equal protection clause recognizes a welfare.”33 In this case, the declared
satisfied if the classification or distinction is valid classification, that is, a classification policy of optimization of the revenue-
based on a reasonable foundation or that has a reasonable foundation or generation capability and collection of
rational basis and is not palpably rational basis and not arbitrary.22 With the BIR and the BOC is infused with public
arbitrary. “ respect to RA 9335, its expressed public interest.
To determine the validity of delegation of policy is the optimization of the revenue- The court declined jurisdiction on this
legislative power, it needs the following: generation capability and collection of case. The Joint Congressional Oversight
(1) the completeness test and (2) the the BIR and the BOC.23 Since the subject Committee in RA 9335 was created for
sufficient standard test. A law is complete of the law is the revenue- generation the purpose of approving the
when it sets forth therein the policy to be capability and collection of the BIR and implementing rules and regulations (IRR)
executed, carried out or implemented by the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions formulated by the DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR,
the delegate. It lays down a sufficient provided in the law should logically BOC and CSC. On May 22, 2006, it
standard when it provides adequate pertain to the said agencies. Moreover, approved the said IRR. From then on, it
guidelines or limitations in the law to map the law concerns only the BIR and the became functus officio and ceased to
out the boundaries of the delegate’s BOC because they have the common exist. Hence, the issue of its alleged
authority and prevent the delegation distinct primary function of generating encroachment on the executive function
from running riot. To be sufficient, the revenues for the national government of implementing and enforcing the law
standard must specify the limits of the through the collection of taxes, customs may be considered moot and
delegate’s authority, announce the duties, fees and charges. academic.
legislative policy and identify the Both the BIR and the BOC principally
conditions under which it is to be perform the special function of being the Facts:
implemented. instrumentalities through which the State
Based from the ruling under Macalintal v. exercises one of its great inherent RA 9335 or Attrition Act of 2005 was
Commission on Elections, it is clear that functions – taxation. Indubitably, such enacted to optimize the revenue-
congressional oversight is not substantial distinction is germane and generation capability and collection of
unconstitutional per se, meaning, it intimately related to the purpose of the the BIR and the BOC. The law intends to
neither necessarily constitutes an law. Hence, the classification and encourage their officials and employees
encroachment on the executive power treatment accorded to the BIR and the to exceed their revenue targets by
to implement laws nor undermines the BOC under R.A. 9335 fully satisfy the providing a system of rewards and
constitutional separation of powers. demands of equal protection. sanctions through the creation of
Rather, it is integral to the checks and R.A. 9335 adequately states the policy Rewards and Incentives Fund and
balances inherent in a democratic and standards to guide the President in Revenue Performance Evaluation Board.
system of government. It may in fact fixing revenue targets and the The Boards in the BIR and BOC to be
even enhance the separation of powers implementing agencies in carrying out composed by their respective
as it prevents the over-accumulation of the provisions of the law under Sec 2 and Commissioners, DOF, DBM, and NEDA,
power in the executive branch. 4 of the said Act. Moreover, the Court has were tasked to prescribe the rules and
recognized the following as sufficient guidelines for the allocation, distribution
Rulings: standards: “public interest,” “justice and and release of the fund, to set criteria
equity,” “public convenience and and procedures for removing service
welfare” and “simplicity, economy and officials and employees whose revenue
collection fall short of the target; and The Joint Congressional Oversight measure such as this should be limited to
further, to issue rules and regulations. Also, Committee in RA 9335 having approved scrutiny and investigation. In particular,
the law tasked the DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, the IRR formulated by the DOF, DBM, congressional oversight must be confined
BOC and the CSC to promulgate and NEDA, BIR, BOC and CSC on May 22, to the following:
issue the IRR of RA 9335, subject to the 2006, it became functus officio and (1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘
approval of the Joint Congressional ceased to exist. Hence, the issue of its power of appropriation and the budget
Oversight Committee created solely for alleged encroachment on the executive hearings conducted in connection with it,
the purpose of approving the formulated function of implementing and enforcing its power to ask heads of departments to
IRR. Later, the JCOO having approved a the law may be considered moot and appear before and be heard by either of
formulated IRR by the agencies, JCOO academic. its Houses on any matter pertaining to
became functus officio and ceased to This notwithstanding, this might be as their departments and its power of
exist. good a time as any for the Court to confirmation and
Petitioners, invoking their right as confront the issue of the constitutionality (2) investigation and monitoring of the
taxpayers, filed this petition challenging of the Joint Congressional. implementation of laws pursuant to the
the constitutionality of RA 9335 and Congressional oversight is not power of Congress to conduct inquiries in
sought to prevent herein respondents unconstitutional per se, meaning, it aid of legislation.
from implementing and enforcing said neither necessarily constitutes an Any action or step beyond that will
law. encroachment on the executive power undermine the separation of powers
Petitioners assail, among others, the to implement laws nor undermines the guaranteed by the Constitution.
creation of a congressional oversight constitutional separation of powers. Legislative vetoes fall in this class.
committee on the ground that it violates Rather, it is integral to the checks and Legislative veto is a statutory provision
the doctrine of separation of powers, as it balances inherent in a democratic requiring the President or an
permits legislative participation in the system of government. It may in fact administrative agency to present the
implementation and enforcement of the even enhance the separation of powers proposed implementing rules and
law, when legislative function should as it prevents the over-accumulation of regulations of a law to Congress which,
have been deemed accomplished and power in the executive branch. by itself or through a committee formed
completed upon the enactment of the However, to forestall the danger of by it, retains a “right” or “power” to
law. Respondents, through the OSG, congressional encroachment “beyond approve or disapprove such regulations
counter this by asserting that the creation the legislative sphere,” the Constitution before they take effect. As such, a
of the congressional oversight committee imposes two basic and related legislative veto in the form of a
under the law enhances rather than constraints on Congress. It may not vest congressional oversight committee is in
violates separation of powers, as it itself, any of its committees or its members the form of an inward-turning delegation
ensures the fulfillment of the legislative with either executive or judicial power. designed to attach a congressional leash
policy. And, when it exercises its legislative (other than through scrutiny and
Issue: power, it must follow the “single, finely investigation) to an agency to which
Whether the creation of the wrought and exhaustively considered, Congress has by law initially delegated
congressional oversight committee procedures” specified under the broad powers. It radically changes the
violates the doctrine of separation of Constitution, including the procedure for design or structure of the Constitution‘s
powers enactment of laws and presentment. diagram of power as it entrusts to
Ruling: YES. Thus, any post-enactment congressional
Congress a direct role in enforcing, to approve the implementing rules and provides for the date of its effectivity. The
applying or implementing its own laws. regulations of the law is declared clear object of this provision is to give the
Administrative regulations enacted by UNCONSTITUTIONAL and therefore NULL general public adequate notice of the
administrative agencies to implement and VOID. The constitutionality of the various laws which are to regulate their
and interpret the law which they are remaining provisions of RA 9335 is upheld. actions and conduct as citizens. Without
entrusted to enforce have the force of such notice and publication, there would
law and are entitled to respect. TAÑADA VS. TUVERA be no basis for the application of the
Congress, in the guise of assuming the 136 SCRA 27 (April 24, 1985) maxim ignoratia legis nominem excusat.
role of an overseer, may not pass upon It would be the height of injustive to
their legality by subjecting them to its FACTS: punish or otherwise burden a citizen for
stamp of approval without disturbing the Invoking the right of the people to be the transgression of a law which he had
calculated balance of powers informed on matters of public concern as no notice whatsoever, not even a
established by the Constitution. In well as the principle that laws to be valid constructive one.
exercising discretion to approve or and enforceable must be published in
disapprove the IRR based on a the Official Gazette, petitioners filed for The very first clause of Section 1 of CA 638
determination of whether or not they writ of mandamus to compel respondent reads: there shall be published in the
conformed with the provisions of RA 9335, public officials to publish and/or cause to Official Gazette…. The word “shall”
Congress arrogated judicial power unto publish various presidential decrees, therein imposes upon respondent officials
itself, a power exclusively vested in this letters of instructions, general orders, an imperative duty. That duty must be
Court by the Constitution. proclamations, executive orders, letters of enforced if the constitutional right of the
From the moment the law becomes implementations and administrative people to be informed on matter of
effective, any provision of law that orders. public concern is to be given substance
empowers Congress or any of its and validity.
members to play any role in the The Solicitor General, representing the
implementation or enforcement of the respondents, moved for the dismissal of The publication of presidential issuances
law violates the principle of separation of the case, contending that petitioners of public nature or of general
powers and is thus unconstitutional. have no legal personality to bring the applicability is a requirement of due
Under this principle, a provision that instant petition. process. It is a rule of law that before a
requires Congress or its members to person may be bound by law, he must
approve the implementing rules of a law ISSUE: first be officially and specifically informed
after it has already taken effect shall be of its contents. The Court declared that
unconstitutional, as is a provision that Whether or not publication in the Official presidential issuances of general
allows Congress or its members to Gazette is required before any law or application which have not been
overturn any directive or ruling made by statute becomes valid and enforceable. published have no force and effect.
the members of the executive branch
charged with the implementation of the HELD: TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
law. 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)
Wherefore, the petition is hereby partially Art. 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude
granted. Section 12 of RA 9335 creating a the requirement of publication in the FACTS:
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee Official Gazette, even if the law itself
This is a motion for reconsideration of the invariably affect the public interest eve if scabbarded saber that cannot faint,
decision promulgated on April 24, 1985. it might be directly applicable only to parry or cut unless the naked blade is
Respondent argued that while one individual, or some of the people drawn.
publication was necessary as a rule, it only, and not to the public as a whole.
was not so when it was “otherwise” as EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987
when the decrees themselves declared All statutes, including those of local PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF
that they were to become effective application and private laws, shall be LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR
immediately upon their approval. published as a condition for their IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL
effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A
ISSUES: publication unless a different effectivity REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY
date is fixed by the legislature. WHEREAS, Article 2 of the Civil Code
1. Whether or not a distinction be made partly provides that "laws shall take effect
between laws of general applicability Publication must be in full or it is no after fifteen days following the
and laws which are not as to their publication at all, since its purpose is to completion of their publication in the
publication; inform the public of the content of the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
2. Whether or not a publication shall be law. provided . . .;"
made in publications of general WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws
circulation. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that to be effective only a publication thereof
publication of laws must be made in the in the Official Gazette will suffice has
HELD: Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a entailed some problems, a point
requirement for their effectivity. The recognized by the Supreme Court in
The clause “unless it is otherwise Supreme Court is not called upon to rule Tañada. et al. vs. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. No.
provided” refers to the date of effectivity upon the wisdom of a law or to repeal or 63915, December 29, 1986) when it
and not to the requirement of publication modify it if it finds it impractical. observed that "[t]here is much to be said
itself, which cannot in any event be of the view that the publication need not
omitted. This clause does not mean that The publication must be made forthwith, be made in the Official Gazette,
the legislature may make the law or at least as soon as possible. considering its erratic release and limited
effective immediately upon approval, or readership";
in any other date, without its previous J. Cruz: WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that
publication. "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general
Laws must come out in the open in the circulation could better perform the
“Laws” should refer to all laws and not clear light of the sun instead of skulking in function of communicating the laws to
only to those of general application, for the shadows with their dark, deep the people as such periodicals are more
strictly speaking, all laws relate to the secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and easily available, have a wider readership,
people in general albeit there are some rumored rules cannot be recognized as and come out regularly"; and
that do not apply to them directly. A law binding unless their existence and WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing
without any bearing on the public would contents are confirmed by a valid premises Article 2 of the Civil Code should
be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as publication intended to make full accordingly be amended so the laws to
class legislation or as an ultra vires act of disclosure and give proper notice to the be effective must be published either in
the legislature. To be valid, the law must people. The furtive law is like a
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of Government Code of 1991. They solicited of at least 12% of the total number of
general circulation in the country; the required number of signatures to registered voters, of which every
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. repeal the said resolution. legislative district must be represented by
AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by However, the Vice Mayor, Hon. Edilberto at least 3% of the registered voter
virtue of the powers vested in me by the de Leon, and the Presiding Office of the therein.”
Constitution, do hereby order: Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong wrote a The Comelec was also empowered to
Sec. 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen letter dated June 11, 1993 to deny the enforce and administer all laws and
days following the completion of their petition for local initiative and/or regulations relative to the conduct of an
publication either in the Official Gazette referendum. initiative and referendum.
or in a newspaper of general circulation On July 6, 1993, the Comelec denied the On Aug. 4, 1989, the Congress approved
in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise petition for local initiative because its RA No. 6735 entitled “An Act Providing for
provided. subject is “merely a resolution and not an a System of Initiative and Referendum
Sec. 2. Article 2 of Republic Act No. 386, ordinance.” and Appropriating Funds Therefor.”
otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the YES. Sec. 32 of Art. 6 provides “ the
Philippines," and all other laws ISSUE: Congress shall provide for a system of
inconsistent with this Executive Order are initiative and referendum, and the
hereby repealed or modified w/n the Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. exceptions therefrom, whereby the
accordingly. 10, Serye 1993 is the proper subject of an people can directly propose
Sec. 3. This Executive Order shall take initiative? and enact laws or approve or reject any
effect immediately after its publication in Sub-issue: w/n the decision of the act or law or part thereof passed by the
the Official Gazette. Comelec to deny the petition be set Congress or local legislative body.
Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day aside? Under Sec. 32(a) of RA No. 6735 it
of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen provided the 3 systems of initiative,
hundred and eighty-seven. HELD: namely:
1. Initiative on the Constitution – petition
GARCIA V. COMELEC The petition is granted and the decision to amend the Constitution
Sept. 30, 1994 of the Comelec on July 6, 1993 is 2. Initiative on statutes – petition
annulled and set aside. proposing to enact a national legislation
FACTS: RULING: 3. Initiative on local legislation – petition
On May 24, 1993, petitioners filed a The 1987 Constitution installed back the proposing to enact a regional, provincial,
petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of power to the people regarding legislation city, municipal, or barangay law,
Morong to annul Pambansang because of the event in February 1986. resolution or ordinance
Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 which The new Constitution became “less Under its Sec.16(a), it provided the
includes the Municipaloty of Morong as trusting of public officials.” limitations on local initiatives, which is
part of the Subic Special Economic Zone Through initiative, the people were given “the power of local initiative shall not be
in accord with the RA No. 7227. the power to amend the Constitution exercised more than once a year.”
The municipality did not take any action under Sec. 2 Art. 17 which provides
on the petition within 30 days after its “amendments to this Constitution may MIRIAM DEFENSOR – SANTIAGO versus
submission; so, they resorted to their likewise be directly proposed by the FIDEL RAMOS (253 SCRA 559)
power of initiative under the Local people through initiative upon a petition
Facts: Moreover, the dismissal of this protest before the Commission on Elections
The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago would serve public interest as it would (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny
ran for presidency and lost in the May dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the due course or to cancel his certificate of
1992 election. In her Motion on the 16th results of the 1992 presidential elections, candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made
day of August in the year 1995, reiterated thereby enhancing the all too crucial a material misrepresentation in his
in her comment of the 29th of August of political stability of the nation during this certificate of candidacy by claiming to
the same year, protestant Defensor- period of national recovery. be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in
Santiago prayed that the revision in the truth, according to Fornier, his parents
remaining precincts of the pilot areas be Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley
dispensed with and the revision process in the protestant to inform the PET within 10 Poe, was an American, and his father,
the pilot areas be deemed computed. days if after the completion of the Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being
revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.
The Court deferred action on the motion she still wishes to present evidence. Since Granting, Fornier asseverated, that Allan
and required, instead, the protestant and DS has not informed the Tribunal of any F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not
protestee to submit their respective such intention, such is a manifest have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to
memoranda. Hence, this petition. indication that she no longer intends to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child
do so. of an alien mother. Fornier based the
Issue: allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ
Whether or not the election protest filed on two assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe
by Defensor-Santiago is moot and contracted a prior marriage to a certain
academic by her election as a Senator in Paulita Gomez before his marriage to
the May 1995 election and her Bessie Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior
assumption of office as such on the 30th marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe,
of June in the year 1995. Tecson vs. Commission on Elections married Bessie Kelly only a year after the
birth of FPJ. On 23 January 2004, the
Held: Facts: On 31 December 2003, Ronald COMELEC dismissed SPA 04-003 for lack
YES. The Court held that the election Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando of merit. 3 days later, or on 26 January
protest filed by Santiago has been Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of 2004, Fornier filed his motion for
abandoned or considered withdrawn as candidacy for the position of President of reconsideration. The motion was denied
a consequence of her election and the Republic of the Philippines under the on 6 February 2004 by the COMELEC en
assumption of office as Senator and her Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) banc. On 10 February 2004, Fornier
discharge of the duties and functions Party, in the 2004 national elections. In his assailed the decision of the COMELEC
thereof. certificate of candidacy, FPJ, before the Supreme Court conformably
representing himself to be a natural-born with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the
The protestant abandoned her citizen of the Philippines, stated his name Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The
“determination to protest and pursue the to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" petition likewise prayed for a temporary
public interest involved in the matter of Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August restraining order, a writ of preliminary
who is the real choice of the electorate. 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. injunction or any other resolution that
Victorino X. Fornier, (GR 161824) initiated, would stay the finality and/or execution
on 9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) of the COMELEC resolutions. The other
petitions, later consolidated with GR and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. given to the parties to present their
161824, would include GR 161434 and GR Secretary of Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or position and evidence, and to prove
161634, both challenging the jurisdiction blood relationship would now become whether or not there has been material
of the COMELEC and asserting that, the primary basis of citizenship by birth. misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in
under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, Considering the reservations made by the Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, must
of the 1987 Constitution, only the parties on the veracity of some of the not only be material, but also deliberate
Supreme Court had original and entries on the birth certificate of FPJ and and willful. The petitions were dismissed.
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic the marriage certificate of his parents,
issue on the case. the only conclusions that could be drawn Tecson Vs. Comelec
with some degree of certainty from the 424 SCRA 277
Issue: Whether FPJ was a natural born documents would be that (1) The parents
citizen, so as to be allowed to run for the of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; Facts: Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner
offcie of the President of the Philippines. (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August initiated a petition before the COMELEC
1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course
Held: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 were married to each other on 16 or to cancel his certificate of candidacy
Constitution expresses that "No person September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. upon the thesis that FPJ made a material
may be elected President unless he is a Poe was Lorenzo Poe; and (5) At the time misrepresentation in his certificate of
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a of his death on 11 September 1954, candidacy by claiming to be a natural-
registered voter, able to read and write, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. The born Filipino citizen when in truth,
at least forty years of age on the day of marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and according to Fornier, his parents were
the election, and a resident of the Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ, foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe,
Philippines for at least ten years and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou was an American, and his father, Allan
immediately preceding such election." are documents of public record in the Poe, was a Spanish national, being the
The term "natural-born citizens," is defined custody of a public officer. The son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.
to include "those who are citizens of the documents have been submitted in Granting, petitioner asseverated, that
Philippines from birth without having to evidence by both contending parties Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he
perform any act to acquire or perfect during the proceedings before the could not have transmitted his Filipino
their Philippine citizenship." Herein, the COMELEC. But while the totality of the citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
date, month and year of birth of FPJ evidence may not establish conclusively illegitimate child of an alien mother.
appeared to be 20 August 1939 during that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Petitioner based the allegation of the
the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Philippines, the evidence on hand still illegitimate birth of respondent on two
Through its history, four modes of would preponderate in his favor enough assertions - first, Allan F. Poe contracted a
acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus to hold that he cannot be held guilty of prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez
soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis – had having made a material before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and,
been in vogue. Only two, i.e., jus soli and misrepresentation in his certificate of second, even if no such prior marriage
jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to candidacy in violation of Section 78, in had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie
being a “natural-born” citizen of the relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Kelly only a year after the birth of
Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector Election Code. Fornier has utterly failed to respondent.
of Customs (1912), did not last long. With substantiate his case before the Court,
the adoption of the 1935 Constitution notwithstanding the ample opportunity
Issue: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born would preponderate in his favor enough of his medical treatment at St. Lukes
Filipino citizen. to hold that he cannot be held guilty of Hospital.
having made a material However, neither the Protestee’s
Held: It is necessary to take on the matter misrepresentation in his certificate of proclamation by Congress nor the death
of whether or not respondent FPJ is a candidacy in violation of Section 78, in of her main rival as a fortuitous
natural-born citizen, which, in turn, relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus intervening event, appears to abate the
depended on whether or not the father Election Code. present controversy in the public arena.
of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have Instead, notice may be taken of periodic
himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the RONALD ALLAN POE a.k.a. FERNANDO mass actions, demonstrations, and rallies
affirmative, whether or not the alleged POE, JR., protestant, vs. GLORIA raising an outcry for this Tribunal to
illegitimacy of respondent prevents him MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, protestee. decide the electoral protest of Mr. FPJ
from taking after the Filipino citizenship of P.E.T. CASE No. 002. March 29, 2005 against Mrs. GMA once and for all.
his putative father. Any conclusion on the Together with the formal Notice of the
Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could FACTS: Death of Protestant, his counsel has
only be drawn from the presumption that Past midnight, in the early hours of June submitted to the Tribunal, dated January
having died in 1954 at 84 years old, 24, 2004, the Congress as the 10, 2005, a MANIFESTATION with URGENT
Lorenzo would have been born sometime representatives of the sovereign people PETITION/MOTION to INTERVENE AS A
in the year 1870, when the Philippines was and acting as the National Board of SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED PROTESTANT
under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Canvassers, in a near-unanimous roll-call FPJ, by the widow, Mrs. Jesusa Sonora
Pangasinan, his place of residence upon vote, proclaimed Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Poe claiming that because of the
his death in 1954, in the absence of any Arroyo (GMA) the duly elected President untimely demise of her husband and in
other evidence, could have well been his of the Philippines. She obtained representation not only of her deceased
place of residence before death, such 12,905,808 votes, as against 11,782,232 husband but more so because of the
that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited votes for the second-placer, the movie paramount interest of the Filipino people,
from the "en masse Filipinization" that the actor Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ). She took there is an urgent need for her to
Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That her Oath of Office before the Chief continue and substitute for her late
citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, Justice of the Supreme Court on June 30, husband in the election protest initiated
would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. 2004. by him to ascertain the true and genuine
Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Refusing to concede defeat, the second- will of the electorate in the 2004
Constitution, during which regime placer in the elections, Mr. FPJ, filed elections.
respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers seasonably an election protest before this In her Comment, the Protestee, Mrs.
citizenship to all persons whose fathers Electoral Tribunal on July 23, 2004. Mrs. GMA, relying on Vda. de De Mesa v.
are Filipino citizens regardless of whether GMA, through counsel, filed her Answer Menciasand subsequent cases including
such children are legitimate or with Counter Protest on August 5, 2004. As analogous cases decided by the House
illegitimate. counsels for the parties exchanged lively of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
motions to rush the presentation of their (HRET), asserts that the widow of a
But while the totality of the evidence may respective positions on the controversy, deceased candidate is not the proper
not establish conclusively that an act of God intervened. On December party to replace the deceased
respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of 14, 2004, the Protestant died in the course protestant since a public office is
the Philippines, the evidence on hand still
personal and not a property that passes votes would be the legitimate beneficiary continuing cooperation and
on to the heirs. in a successful election contest. collaboration, setting a new chapter of
Protestee also contends Mrs. FPJ cannot This Tribunal, however, does not have any strategic partnership for mutual
substitute for her deceased husband rule on substitution nor intervention but it opportunity and growth (for both
because under the Rules of the does allow for the analogous and countries).”
Presidential Electoral Tribunal, only the suppletory application of the Rules of JPEPA which has been referred to as a
registered candidates who obtained the Court, decisions of the Supreme Court, ‘mega treaty’ is a comprehensive plan
2nd and 3rd highest votes for the and the decision of the electoral for opening up of markets in goods and
presidency may contest the election of tribunals. services as well as removing barriers and
the president and patently, Mrs. FPJ did Rule 3, Section 16 is the rule on restrictions on investments. It is a deal that
not receive the 2nd and 3rd highest votes substitution in the Rules of Court. This rule encompasses even our commitments to
for she was not even a candidate for the allows substitution by a legal the WTO.
presidency in the election that is being representative. It can be gleaned from The complexity of JPEPA became all the
contested. the citation of this rule that more evident at the Senate hearing
Citing pertinent PET Rules, protestee also movant/intervenor seeks to appear conducted by the Committee on Trade
stresses that this Tribunal has no before this Tribunal as the legal and Commerce last November 2006. The
jurisdiction over actions of surviving representative/substitute of the late committee, chaired by Senator Mar
spouses to ascertain the vote of the protestant prescribed by said Section 16. Roxas, heard differing views and
electorate as the Tribunal has jurisdiction However, in our application of this rule to perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the
only over election protests and quo an election contest, we have every time committee heard Government’s rosy
warranto cases. ruled that a public office is personal to projections on the economic benefits of
ISSUE: May the widow the public officer and not a property JPEPA and on the other hand the views
substitute/intervene for the protestant transmissible to the heirs upon death. of environmental and trade activists who
who died during the pendency of the Thus, we consistently rejected substitution raised there very serious concerns about
latter’s protest case? by the widow or the heirs in election the country being turned into Japan’s
contests where the protestant dies during toxic waste basket. The discussion in the
RULING: NO. the pendency of the protest. Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an
The fundamental rule applicable in a Motion of movant/intervenor is DENIED for issue concerning trade and economic
presidential election protest is Rule 14 of lack of merit. relations with Japan but one that touches
the PET Rules. on broader national development
Pursuant to this rule, only two persons, the AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO concerns.
2nd and 3rd placers, may contest the
election. By this express enumeration, the Facts: The signing of the Japan- Issues:
rule makers have in effect determined Philippines Economic Partnership
the real parties in interest concerning an Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the 1. Do the therein petitioners have
on-going election contest. It envisioned a Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in standing to bring this action for
scenario where, if the declared winner September 2006 was hailed by both mandamus in their capacity as citizens of
had not been truly voted upon by the Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi the Republic, as taxpayers, and as
electorate, the candidate who received and Philippine President Gloria members of the Congress
that 2nd or the 3rdhighest number of Macapagal Arroyo as a “milestone in the
2. Can this Honorable Court exercise access to the Philippine and Japanese Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our
primary jurisdiction of this case and take offers in the course of the negotiations. people's right to information against any
cognizance of the instant petition. abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal
The Court held: “Applying the principles that We fully share. The Court, however,
3. Are the documents and information adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear in its endeavour to guard against the
being requested in relation to the JPEPA that while the final text of the JPEPA may abuse of executive privilege, should be
exempted from the general rules on not be kept perpetually confidential – careful not to veer towards the opposite
transparency and full public disclosure since there should be 'ample opportunity extreme, to the point that it would strike
such that the Philippine government is for discussion before [a treaty] is down as invalid even a legitimate
justified in denying access thereto. approved' – the offers exchanged by the exercise thereof.”
parties during the negotiations continue
Rulings: to be privileged even after the JPEPA is Facts:
published. It is reasonable to conclude
The Supreme Court en banc that the Japenese representatives Petitioners seek to obtain from
promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on submitted their offers with the respondents the full text of the Japan-
the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action understanding that 'historic Philippines Economic Partnership
Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” confidentiality' would govern the same. Agreement (JPEPA) including the
(G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal Disclosing these offers could impair the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
dismissed the Petition for mandamus and ability of the Philippines to deal not only during the negotiation process and all
prohibition, which sought to compel with Japan but with other foreign pertinent attachments and annexes
respondents Department of Trade governments in future negotiations.” thereto.The JPEPA, which will be the first
Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas bilateral free trade agreement to be
Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full It also reasoned out that opening for entered into by the Philippines with
text of the Japan-Philippines Economic public scrutiny the Philippine offers in another country in the event the Senate
Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the treaty negotiations would discourage grants its consent to it, covers a broad
lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers future Philippine representatives from range of topics which includes trade in
submitted during the negotiation process frankly expressing their views during goods, rules of origin, customs
and all pertinent attachments and negotiations. The Highest Tribunal procedures, paperless trading, trade in
annexes thereto. recognized that treaty negotiations services, investment, intellectual property
normally involve a process of quid pro rights, government procurement,
In its Decision, the Court noted that the quo, where negotiators would willingly movement of natural persons,
full text of the JPEPA has been made grant concessions in an area of lesser cooperation, competition policy, mutual
accessible to the public since 11 importance in order to obtain more recognition, dispute avoidance and
September 2006, and thus the demand favorable terms in an area of greater settlement, improvement of the business
to be furnished with copy of the said national interest. environment, and general and final
document has become moot and provisions.
academic. Notwithstanding this, In the same Decision, the Court took time
however, the Court lengthily discussed to address the dissent of Chief Justice Issues:
the substatives issues, insofar as they Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are aware
impinge on petitioners' demand for that behind the dissent of the Chief a. Whether or not the claim of the
petitioners is covered by the right to From the nature of the JPEPA as an matters affecting national security and
information. international trade agreement, it is public order.
evident that the Philippine and Japanese
b. Whether the executive privilege offers submitted during the negotiations
claimed by the respondents applies only towards its execution are matters of 3.The deliberative process privilege is a
at certain stages of public concern. This, respondents do not qualified privilege and can be overcome
the negotiation process. dispute. They only claim that diplomatic by a sufficient showing of need. This need
negotiations are covered by the doctrine determination is to be made flexibly on a
c. Whether there is sufficient public of executive privilege, thus constituting case-by-case, ad hoc basis. "[E]ach time
interest to overcome the claim of an exception to the right to information [the deliberative process privilege] is
privilege. and the policy of full public disclosure. asserted the district court must undertake
a fresh balancing of the competing
d. Whether the Respondents’ failed to Thus, the Court holds that, in determining interests," taking into account factors
claim executive privilege on time. whether an information is covered by the such as "the relevance of the evidence,"
right to information, a specific “showing "the availability of other evidence," "the
Decision: of need” for such information is not a seriousness of the litigation," "the role of
relevant consideration, but only whether the government," and the "possibility of
Supreme Court dismissed the petition, on the same is a matter of public concern. future timidity by government employees.
the following reasons: When, however, the government has
1.To be covered by the right to claimed executive privilege, and it has In the case at hand, Petitioners have
information, the information sought must established that the information is indeed failed to present the strong and
meet the threshold requirement that it be covered by the same, then the party “sufficient showing of need”. The
a matter of public concern. demanding it, if it is to overcome the arguments they proffer to establish their
privilege, must show that that the entitlement to the subject documents fall
In determining whether or not a particular information is vital, not simply for the short of this standard stated in the
information is of public concern there is satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability decided cases.
no rigid test which can be applied. to effectively and reasonably participate
‘Public concern’ like ‘public interest’ is a in social, political, and economic There is no dispute that the information
term that eludes exact definition. Both decision-making. subject of this case is a matter of public
terms embrace a broad spectrum of concern. The Court has earlier concluded
subjects which the public may want to that it is a matter of public concern, not
know, either because these directly 2.Supreme Court stated that the on the basis of any specific need shown
affect their lives, or simply because such constitutional right to information includes by petitioners, but from the very nature of
matters naturally arouse the interest of an official information on on-going the JPEPA as an international trade
ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is negotiations before a final contract. The agreement.
for the courts to determine on a case by information, however, must constitute
case basis whether the matter at issue is definite propositions by the government Further, the text of the JPEPA having
of interest or importance, as it relates to and should not cover recognized been published, petitioners have failed to
or affects the public. exceptions like privileged information, convince this Court that they will not be
military and diplomatic secrets and similar able to meaningfully exercise their right
to participate in decision-making unless COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita sent
the initial offers are also published. NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY a letter dated 15 November to the
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 Committees requesting them to dispense
with Neri’s testimony on the ground of
4.When the respondents invoked the Petitioner Romulo Neri, then Director executive privilege. Ermita invoked the
privilege for the first time only in their General of the National Economic and privilege on the ground that “the
Comment to the present petition does Development Authority (NEDA), was information sought to be disclosed might
not mean that the claim of privilege invited by the respondent Senate impair our diplomatic as well as
should not be credited. Committees to attend their joint economic relations with the People’s
investigation on the alleged anomalies in Republic of China,” and given the
Respondents’ failure to claim the the National Broadband Network (NBN) confidential nature in which these
privilege during the House Committee Project. This project was contracted by information were conveyed to the
hearings may not, however, be the Philippine Government with the President, Neri “cannot provide the
construed as a waiver thereof by the Chinese firm Zhong Xing Committee any further details of these
Executive branch. What respondents Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), conversations, without disclosing the very
received from the House Committee and which involved the amount of thing the privilege is designed to
petitioner-Congressman Aguja were US$329,481,290. When he testified before protect.” Thus, on 20 November, Neri did
mere requests for information. The House the Senate Committees, he disclosed not appear before the respondent
Committee refrained from pursuing its that then Commission on Committees.
earlier resolution to issue a subpoena Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos, On 22 November, respondents issued a
duces tecum on account of then brokering for ZTE, offered him P200 million Show Cause Letter to Neri requiring him
Speaker Jose de Venecia’s alleged in exchange for his approval of the NBN to show cause why he should not be
request to Committee Chairperson Project. He further narrated that he cited for contempt for his failure to
Congressman Teves to hold the same in informed President Gloria Macapagal- attend the scheduled hearing on 20
abeyance. Arroyo about the bribery attempt and November. On 29 November, Neri replied
that she instructed him not to accept the to the Show Cause Letter and explained
While it is a salutary and noble practice bribe. However, when probed further on that he did not intend to snub the Senate
for Congress to refrain from issuing what they discussed about the NBN hearing, and requested that if there be
subpoenas to executive officials – out of Project, petitioner refused to answer, new matters that were not yet taken up
respect for their office – until resort to it invoking “executive privilege.” In during his first appearance, he be
becomes necessary, the fact remains particular, he refused to answer the informed in advance so he can prepare
that such requests are not a compulsory questions on 1.) whether or not the himself. He added that his non-
process. Being mere requests, they do not President followed up the NBN Project, 2.) appearance was upon the order of the
strictly call for an assertion of executive whether or not she directed him to President, and that his conversation with
privilege. prioritize it, and 3.) whether or not she her dealt with delicate and
directed him to approve it. sensitive national
ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner vs. SENATE Later on, respondent Committees issued security and diplomatic matters relating
COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to to the impact of the bribery scandal
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS, petitioner, requiring him to appear and involving high government officials and
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND testify on 20 November 2007. However, the possible loss of confidence of foreign
investors and lenders in the Philippines. Citing the case of United States vs. Neri can be considered a close advisor,
Respondents found the explanation Nixon (418 U.S. 683), the Court laid out the being a member of the President’s
unsatisfactory, and later on issued an three elements needed to be complied Cabinet.
Order citing Neri in contempt and with in order for the claim to executive And as to the third element, there is no
consequently ordering his arrest and privilege to be valid. These are: 1.) the adequate showing of a compelling need
detention at the Office of the Senate protected communication must relate to that would justify the limitation of the
Sergeant-At-Arms until he appears and a quintessential and non-delegable privilege and of the unavailability of the
gives his testimony. presidential power; 2.) it must be information elsewhere by an appropriate
Neri filed the petition asking the Court to authored, solicited, and received by a investigating authority. Presidential
nullify both the Show Cause Letter and close advisor of the President or the communications are presumptive
the Contempt Order for having been President himself. The judicial test is that privilege and that the presumption can
issued with grave abuse of discretion an advisor must be in “operational be overcome only by mere showing of
amounting to lack or excess of proximity” with the President; and, 3.) it public need by the branch seeking
jurisdiction, and stressed that his refusal to may be overcome by a showing of access to such conversations. In the
answer the three questions was anchored adequate need, such that the present case, respondent Committees
on a valid claim to executive privilege in information sought “likely contains failed to show a compelling or critical
accordance with the ruling in the important evidence,” and by the need for the answers to the three
landmark case of Senate vs. Ermita (G.R. unavailability of the information questions in the enactment of any law
No. 169777, 20 April 2006). For its part, the elsewhere by an appropriate under Sec. 21, Art. VI. Instead, the
Senate Committees argued that they did investigating authority. questions veer more towards the exercise
not exceed their authority in issuing the In the present case, Executive Secretary of the legislative oversight function under
assailed orders because there is no valid Ermita claimed executive privilege on the Sec. 22, Art. VI. As ruled in Senate vs.
justification for Neri’s claim to executive argument that the communications Ermita, “the oversight function
privilege. In addition, they claimed that elicited by the three questions “fall under of Congress may be facilitated by
the refusal of petitioner to answer the conversation and correspondence compulsory process only to the extent
three questions violates the people’s right between the President and public that it is performed in pursuit of
to public information, and that the officials” necessary in “her executive and legislation.”
executive is using the concept of policy decision-making process,” and Neri’s refusal to answer based on the
executive privilege as a means to that “the information sought to be claim of executive privilege does not
conceal the criminal act of bribery in the disclosed might impair our diplomatic as violate the people’s right to
highest levels of government. well as economic relations with the information on matters of public concern
People’s Republic of China.” It is clear simply because Sec. 7, Art. III of the
Issue: then that the basis of the claim is a Constitution itself provides that this right is
Whether or not the three questions that matter related to the quintessential and “subject to such limitations as may be
petitioner Neri refused to answer were non-delegable presidential power of provided by law.”
covered by executive privilege, making diplomacy or foreign relations. Held:
the arrest order issued by the respondent As to the second element, the The divided Supreme Court (voting 9-
Senate Committees void. communications were received by a 6) was convinced that the three
close advisor of the President. Under the questions are covered by presidential
Discussion: “operational proximity” test, petitioner communications privilege, and that this
privilege has been validly claimed by the bribery attempt and that she instructed executive privilege. This is because this
executive department, enough to shield him not to accept the bribe. concept has Constitutional
petitioner Neri from any arrest order the However, when probed further on what underpinnings.
Senate may issue against him for not they discussed about the NBN Project, The claim of executive privilege is highly
answering such questions. petitioner refused to answer, invoking recognized in cases where the subject of
The petition was granted. The subject “executive privilege”. In particular, he inquiry relates to a power textually
Order dated January 30, 2008, citing refused to answer the questions on: committed by the Constitution to the
petitioner in contempt of the Senate (a) whether or not President Arroyo President, such as the area of military and
Committee and directing his arrest and followed up the NBN Project, foreign relations. Under our Constitution,
detention was nullified. (b) whether or not she directed him to the President is the repository of the
prioritize it, and commander-in-chief, appointing,
(c) whether or not she directed him to pardoning, and diplomatic powers.
FACTS: On April 21, 2007, the Department approve. Consistent with the doctrine of separation
of Transportation and Communication He later refused to attend the other of powers, the information relating to
(DOTC) entered into a contract with hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the these powers may enjoy greater
Zhong Xing Telecommunications senate averring that the communications confidentiality than others.
Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of between GMA and Neri are privileged Several jurisprudence cited provide the
equipment and services for the National and that the jurisprudence laid down in elements of presidential communications
Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the Senate vs Ermita be applied. He was privilege:
amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290 cited in contempt of respondent 1) The protected communication must
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The committees and an order for his arrest relate to a “quintessential and non-
Project was to be financed by the and detention until such time that he delegable presidential power.”
People’s Republic of China. would appear and give his testimony. 2) The communication must be authored
The Senate passed various resolutions or “solicited and received” by a close
relative to the NBN deal. In the ISSUE: advisor of the President or the President
September 18, 2007 hearing Jose de Are the communications elicited by the himself. The judicial test is that an advisor
Venecia III testified that several high subject three (3) questions covered by must be in “operational proximity” with
executive officials and power brokers executive privilege? the President.
were using their influence to push the 3) The presidential communications
approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA. HELD: privilege remains a qualified privilege that
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited The communications are covered by may be overcome by a showing of
to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. executive privilege adequate need, such that the
He appeared in one hearing wherein he The revocation of EO 464 (advised information sought “likely contains
was interrogated for 11 hrs and during executive officials and employees to important evidence” and by the
which he admitted that Abalos of follow and abide by the Constitution, unavailability of the information
COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M existing laws and jurisprudence, including, elsewhere by an appropriate
in exchange for his approval of the NBN among others, the case of Senate v. investigating authority.
project. He further narrated that he Ermita when they are invited to legislative In the case at bar, Executive Secretary
informed President Arroyo about the inquiries in aid of legislation.), does not in Ermita premised his claim of executive
any way diminish the concept of privilege on the ground that the
communications elicited by the three (3) Respondent Committees further contend particular, he refused to answer 3
questions “fall under conversation and that the grant of petitioner’s claim of questions:
correspondence between the President executive privilege violates the
and public officials” necessary in “her constitutional provisions on the right of (a) whether or not President Arroyo
executive and policy decision-making the people to information on matters of followed up the NBN Project
process” and, that “the information public concern.50 We might have (b) whether or not she directed him to
sought to be disclosed might impair our agreed with such contention if petitioner prioritize it
diplomatic as well as economic relations did not appear before them at all. But (c) whether or not she directed him to
with the People’s Republic of China.” petitioner made himself available to approve it
Simply put, the bases are presidential them during the September 26 hearing,
communications privilege and executive where he was questioned for eleven (11) Unrelenting, the Senate Committees
privilege on matters relating to hours. Not only that, he expressly issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to
diplomacy or foreign relations. manifested his willingness to answer more Neri, requiring him to appear and testify
Using the above elements, we are questions from the Senators, with the on November 20, 2007. However,
convinced that, indeed, the exception only of those covered by his Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita
communications elicited by the three (3) claim of executive privilege. requested the Senate Committees to
questions are covered by the presidential The right to public information, like any dispense with Neri’s testimony on the
communications privilege. First, the other right, is subject to limitation. Section ground of executive privilege. In his letter,
communications relate to a 7 of Article III provides: Ermita said “that the information sought
“quintessential and non-delegable The right of the people to information on to be disclosed might impair our
power” of the President, i.e. the power to matters of public concern shall be diplomatic as well as economic relations
enter into an executive agreement with recognized. Access to official records, with China.” Neri did not appear before
other countries. This authority of the and to documents, and papers the Committees. As a result, the Senate
President to enter into executive pertaining to official acts, transactions, or issued an Order citing him in contempt
agreements without the concurrence of decisions, as well as to government and ordered his arrest and detention until
the Legislature has traditionally been research data used as basis for policy such time that he would appear and
recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. development, shall be afforded the give his testimony.
Second, the communications are citizen, subject to such limitations as may
“received” by a close advisor of the be provided by law. Are the communications elicited by the
President. Under the “operational subject three (3) questions covered by
proximity” test, petitioner can be Neri vs. Senate executive privilege?
considered a close advisor, being a G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
And third, there is no adequate showing Former NEDA Director General Romulo
of a compelling need that would justify Neri testified before the Senate for 11 Yes. The Communications elicited by the
the limitation of the privilege and of the hours relating to the ZTE-NBN mess. 3 Questions are covered by Executive
unavailability of the information However, when probed further on what Privilege. xxx “we are convinced that the
elsewhere by an appropriate he and the President discussed about the communications elicited by the questions
investigating authority. NBN Project, he refused to answer, are covered by the presidential
invoking “executive privilege”. In communications privilege. First, the
communications relate to a to information which underlies the power is constrained to invoke the settled
“quintessential and non-delegable of inquiry and the right of people to doctrine of executive privilege as refined
power” of the President, i.e. the power to information on matters of public concern. in Senate v. Ermita, and has advised
enter into an executive agreement with For one, the demand of a citizen for the Secretary Neri accordingly.” Obviously,
other countries. This authority of the production of documents pursuant to his he is referring to the Office of the
President to enter into executive right to information does not have the President. That is more than enough
agreements without the concurrence of same obligatory force as a subpoena compliance.
the Legislature has traditionally been duces tecum issued by Congress. Neither May the Congress require the executive
recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. does the right to information grant a to state the reasons for the claim with
Second, the communications are citizen the power to exact testimony from particularity?
“received” by a close advisor of the government officials. These powers
President. Under the “operational belong only to Congress, not to an ANSWER: No. The Congress must not
proximity” test, petitioner can be individual citizen. (visit require the executive to state the reasons
considered a close advisor, being a fellester.blogspot.com) for the claim with such particularity as to
member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. compel disclosure of the information
And third, there is no adequate showing On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued which the privilege is meant to protect.
of a compelling need that would justify Memorandum Circular No. 151, revoking This is a matter of respect to a coordinate
the limitation of the privilege and of the E.O. 464. Is there a recognized claim of and co-equal department. (Senate v.
unavailability of the information executive privilege despite the Ermita)
elsewhere by an appropriate revocation of E.O. 464?
investigating authority. Is the contempt and arrest Order of Neri
ANSWER: Yes. The revocation of E.O. 464 valid?
The Senate contends that the grant of does not in any way diminish our concept
the executive privilege violates the “Right of executive privilege. This is because this ANSWER: No. There being a legitimate
of the people to information on matters concept has Constitutional claim of executive privilege, the issuance
of public concern”. Is the senate correct? underpinnings. of the contempt Order suffers from
constitutional infirmity. The respondent
ANSWER: No. While Congress is In Senate v. Ermita, the executive Committees did not comply with the
composed of representatives elected by privilege should be invoked by the requirement laid down in Senate v. Ermita
the people, it does not follow, except in a President or through the Executive that the invitations should contain the
highly qualified sense, that in every Secretary “by order of the President.” Did “possible needed statute which
exercise of its power of inquiry, the Executive Secretary Ermita correctly prompted the need for the inquiry,”
people are exercising their right to invoke the principle of executive along with “the usual indication of the
information. The right of Congress or any privilege, by order of the President? subject of inquiry and the questions
of its Committees to obtain information in relative to and in furtherance thereof.”
aid of legislation cannot be equated with ANSWER: Yes. The Letter dated The SC also find merit in the argument of
the people’s right to public information. November 17, 2007 of Executive the OSG that respondent Committees
The distinction between such rights is laid Secretary Ermita satisfies the requirement. violated Section 21 of Article VI of the
down in Senate v. Ermita: There are clear It serves as the formal claim of privilege. Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be
distinctions between the right of Congress There, he expressly states that “this Office in accordance with the “duly published
rules of procedure.” The respondent Section 2: If they hold more positions owned or controlled corporations and
Committees’ issuance of the contempt more than what is required in section 1, their subsidiaries.
Order is arbitrary and precipitate. It must they must relinquish the excess position in PETITIONERS CONTENTION: EO 284 adds
be pointed out that respondent favor of the subordinate official who is exceptions to Section 13 of Article VII
Committees did not first pass upon the next in rank, but in no case shall any other than those provided in the
claim of executive privilege and inform official hold more than two positions constitution. According to the petitioners,
petitioner of their ruling. Instead, they other than his primary position. the only exceptions against holding any
curtly dismissed his explanation as Section 3: AT least 1/3 of the members of other office or employment in
“unsatisfactory” and simultaneously the boards of such corporation should government are those provided in the
issued the Order citing him in contempt either be a secretary, or undersecretary, Constitution namely: 1. The Vice
and ordering his immediate arrest and or assistant secretary. President (may be appointed as a
detention. (Neri vs. Senate, G.R. No. 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, Member of the Cabinet under Section 3
180643, March 25, 2008) meanwhile, states that: par.2 of Article VII: “The Vice-President
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, may be appointed as a Member of the
the Members of the Cabinet, and their Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, petitioner, vs. THE deputies or assistants shall not, unless confirmation.”) and the secretary of
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, respondent otherwise provided in this Constitution, justice (as an ex-officio member of the
G.R. No. 83815 February 22, 1991 hold any other office or employment Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec.
during their tenure. They shall not, during 8 of article VIII: “A Judicial and Bar
FACTS: said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice Council is hereby created under the
The two petitions in this case sought to any other profession, participate in any supervision of the Supreme Court
declare unconstitutional Executive Order business, or be financially interested in composed of the Chief Justice as ex
No. 284 issued by then President Corazon any contract with, or in any franchise, or officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice,
C. Aquino. special privilege granted by the and a representative of the Congress as
The petitioners alleged that Section 1, 2 Government or any subdivision, agency, ex officio Members, a representative of
and 3 of EO 284 contravenes the or instrumentality thereof, including the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
provision of Sec. 13, Article VII of the 1987 government-owned or controlled retired Member of the Supreme Court,
Constitution corporations or their subsidiaries. They and a representative of the private
The assailed provisions of EO 284 are as shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the sector.”)
follows: conduct of their office. ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is
Section 1: A cabinet member, The spouse and relatives by unconstitutional
undersecretary or assistant secretary or consanguinity or affinity within the fourth HELD: Yes. EO 284 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
other appointive officials of the Executive civil degree of the President shall not, The court said, by allowing Cabinet
Department may in addition to his during his tenure, be appointed as members, undersecretaries or assistant
primary position, hold not more than two Members of the Constitutional secretaries to hold at least two positions
positions in the government and Commissions, or the Office of the in the government and government
government corporations and receive Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, corporations, EO 284 actually allows them
the corresponding compensation Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of to hold multiple offices or employment
therefor. bureaus or offices, including government- which is a direct contravention of the
express mandate of Article VII, Section 13
of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits more than two (2) positions other than his subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
them from doing so, unless otherwise primary position. conflict of interest in the conduct of their
provided in the 1987 Constitution itself. office.
The explained that the phrase “unless Section 3: At least 1/3 of the members of
otherwise provided in this the boards of such corporation should Section 8, Article VIII: Unless otherwise
constitution” must be given a literal either be a Secretary, Undersecretary or allowed by law or by the primary
interpretation to refer only to those Assistant Secretary. functions of his position, no appointive
particular instances cited in the official shall hold any other office or
constitution itself which are Section 3 of Petitioners are challenging EO No. 284's employment in the government or any
Article VII (for VP) and Section 8 of Article unconstitutionality as its provisions are in subdivision, agency or instrumentality
VIII (for Secretary of Justice). direct contrast with Section 13, Article VII thereof, including government-owned or
Thus, the PETITION is GRANTED. of the Constitution. According to the controlled corporations or their
FACTS: Consolidated petitions are being petitioners, the only exceptions against subsidiaries.
resolved jointly as both seek for the holding any other office or employment
declaration of the unconstitutionality of in government are those provided in the ISSUE: Whether or not EO No. 284 is
Executive Order No. 284 (EO No. 284) Constitution namely: 1) the Vice President constitutional.
issued by former President Corazon C. may be appointed as a Cabinet member
Aquino on July 25, 1987. under Section 3(2) of Article VII; 2) The HELD: The Court ruled in the negative.
Secretary of Justice is and ex-officio of
EO No. 284 allows members of the the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of It has been held that in construing a
Cabinet, their Undersecretaries and Section 8, Article VIII. Constitution should bear in mind the
Assistant Secretaries to hold other than object sought to be accomplished by its
their government positions in addition to adoption, and the evils, if any, sought to
their primary positions. Constitutional provisions: be prevented or remedied. A doubtful
provision will be examined in the light of
Section 1: A Cabinet member, Section 13, Article VII: The President, Vice- the history of the times and the condition
Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary or President, the Members of the Cabinet and circumstances under which the
other appointive officials of the Executive and their Deputies or Assistants shall Constitution was framed.
Department may, in addition to his not, unless otherwise provided by the
primary position, hold not more than two Constitution, hold any other office or The legislative intent of both
(2) positions in the government and employment during their tenure. They Constitutional provisions is to prevent
government corporations and receive shall not, directly or indirectly, during their government officials from holding
corresponding compensation thereof. tenure, practice any other profession, multiple positions in the government for
participate in any business, or be self enrichment which is a betrayal of
Section 2: If they hold more than the financially interested in any contract with, public trust.
requisites of Section 1, they must or in any franchise, or special privilege
relinquish the excess position in favor of granted by the Government or any The provisions of EO No. 284 above-
the subordinate official who is next in rank subdivision, agency or instrumentality mentioned are in direct contradiction to
but in no case shall any officer hold not thereof, including government-owned or the express mandate provided by the
controlled corporations or their Constitutional provisions (Sec 13, Art VII
and Sec 8, Art VIII). The Constitution, the However, in 1997, NAC ex officio members
fundamental law of the land, shall reign resident auditor Eulalia disallowed on
supreme over any other statute. When audit the payment of honoraria to these 3. Are the representatives de
there is conflict, it shall be resolved in representatives pursuant to COA facto officers and as such are entitled
favor of the highest law of the land. Thus, Memorandum No. 97-038. to allowances?
the Court held that EO No. 284 is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As a result, DENR Meanwhile, in 1999, the NAC passed
Secretary Fulgenio Factoran, Jr., DILF Administrative Order No. 2 (the new Held:
Secretary Luis Santos, DOH Secretary Implementing Rules and Regulations of 1. No. COA Memorandum No. 97-038
Alfredo Bengzon and DBM Secretary Proclamation No. 347), which was does not need, for validity and effectivity,
Guillermo Carague are ordered to approved by then President Joseph the publication required by Article 2 of
immediately relinquish their offices and Estrada. Section 1, Rule II thereof provides the Civil Code:
employment. that ex officio members may designate Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen
their representatives to the Commission. days following the completion of their
WHEREFORE, subject to the qualifications Said Representatives shall be entitled to publication in the Official Gazette, unless
stated, the petitions are GRANTED. per diems, allowances, bonuses and it is otherwise provided. This Code shall
Executive Order No. 284 is hereby other benefits as may be authorized by take effect one year after such
declared null and void and is accordingly law. publication.
set aside. We clarified this publication requirement
Petitioner invoked Administrative Order in Taada vs. Tuvera:
National Amnesty Commission vs. COA No. 2 in assailing before the COA the
rulings of the resident auditor and the [A]ll statutes, including those of local
Facts: National Government Audit Office application and private laws, shall be
disallowing payment of honoraria to the published as a condition for their
Petitioner National Amnesty Commission ex officio members' representatives, to no effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days
(NAC) is a government agency created avail. after publication unless a different
in 1994 by then President Fidel V. Ramos effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
through Proclamation No. 347. The NAC is Issues:
tasked to receive, process and review Covered by this rule are presidential
amnesty applications. It is composed of 7 1. Whether or not COA committed grave decrees and executive
members: a Chairperson, three regular abuse of discretion in implementing COA orders promulgated by the President in
members appointed by the President, Memorandum No. 97-038 without the the exercise of legislative powers
and the Secretaries of Justice, National required notice and publication under whenever the same are
Defense and Interior and Local Article 2 of the Civil Code validly delegated by the legislature or, at
Government as ex officio members. present, directly conferred by the
2. Whether or not COA committed grave Constitution. Administrative rules and
After personally attending the initial NAC abuse of discretion disallowing the regulations must also be published if their
meetings, the three ex officio members payment of honoraria on the ground of purpose is to enforce or implement
turned over said responsibility to their lack of authority of representatives to existing law pursuant to a
representatives who were paid honoraria. attend the NAC meetings in behalf of the valid delegation.
 such. other euphemism. Such additional
Interpretative regulations and compensation is prohibited by the
those merely internal in nature, that is, There is a considerable difference Constitution.
regulating only the personnel of the between an appointment and
administrative agency and not the designation. An appointment is the Furthermore, in de la Cruz vs. COA
public, need not be published. Neither is selection by the proper authority of an and Bitonio vs. COA, we upheld COA's
publication required of the so- individual who is to exercise the powers disallowance of the payment of
called letters of instructions issued by and functions of a given office; a honoraria and per diems to the officers
administrative superiors concerning the designation merely connotes an concerned who sat as ex officio
rules or guidelines to be followed by their imposition of additional duties, usually by members or alternates.
subordinates in the performance of their law, upon a person already in the public The agent, alternate or representative
duties. service by virtue of an earlier cannot have a better right than his
appointment. principal, the ex officio member. The
COA Memorandum No. 97-038 is merely laws, rules, prohibitions or restrictions that
an internal and interpretative regulation Designation does not entail payment of cover the ex officio member apply with
or letter of instruction which does not additional benefits or grant upon the equal force to his representative. In short,
need publication to be effective and person so designated the right to claim since the ex officio member is prohibited
valid. It is not an implementing rule or the salary attached to the position. from receiving additional compensation
regulation of a statute but a directive Without an appointment, a designation for a position held in an ex officio
issued by the COA to its auditors to does not entitle the officer to receive the capacity, so is his representative likewise
enforce the self-executing prohibition salary of the position. The legal basis of restricted.
imposed by Section 13, Article VII of the an employee's right to claim the salary
Constitution on the President and his attached thereto is a duly issued and
official family, their deputies and approved appointment to the position, 3. No. The representatives cannot be
assistants, or their representatives from and not a mere designation. considered de facto officers because
holding multiple offices and receiving they were not appointed but were
double compensation. In Civil Liberties Union, we held merely designated to act as such.
that cabinet secretaries, including Furthermore, they are not entitled to
their deputies and assistants, who hold something their own principals are
2. No. The COA is correct that there is no positions in ex officio capacities, are prohibited from receiving.
legal basis to grant per diem, honoraria proscribed from receiving additional
or any allowance whatsoever to the NAC compensation because their services
ex officio members' official are already paid for and covered by the
representatives. compensation attached to their principal
offices. Thus, in the attendance of the Bitonio vs COA
The representatives in fact assumed their NAC meetings, the ex officio members
responsibilities not by virtue of a new were not entitled to, and were in fact Petitioner Bitonio was appointed Director
appointment but by mere prohibited from, collecting extra IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations in the
designation from the ex officio members compensation, whether it was called per DOLE. DOLE Acting Secretary Brilliantes
who were themselves also designated as diem, honorarium, allowance or some designated the Bitonio to be the DOLE
representative to the Board of 7916 is a statute more superior than an attached to his principal office. It follows
Directors of PEZA. As representative of the administrative directive and the former that the petitioner, who sits in the PEZA
Secretary of Labor to the PEZA, cannot just be repealed or amended by Board merely as representative of the
Bitonio was receiving a per diem for the latter. Secretary of Labor, is likewise prohibited
every board meeting he attended during from receiving any compensation
the years 1995 to 1997. After a post audit He also posits that R.A. No. 7916 was therefor. Otherwise, the representative
of the PEZA's disbursement transactions, enacted four (4) years after the case of would have a better right than his
the COA disallowed the payment of per Civil Liberties Union was promulgated. It is, principal, and the fact that the
diems to the petitioner pursuant to the therefore, assumed that the legislature, petitioner’s position as Director IV of the
ruling in Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive before enacting a law, was aware of the Department of Labor and Employment
Secretary where Executive Order No. 284 prior holdings of the courts. Since the (DOLE) is not covered by the ruling in the
allowing government officials to hold constitutionality or the validity of R.A. No. Civil Liberties Union case is of no moment.
multiple positions in government 7916 was never challenged, the provision After all, the petitioner attended
was declared unconstitutional. Thus, on the payment of per diems remains in the board meetings by the authority
Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries, force notwithstanding the Civil Liberties given to him by the Secretary of Labor to
and their Assistant Secretaries, are Union case. Nonetheless, the petitioner's sit as his representative. If it were not for
prohibited to hold other government position as Director IV is not included in such designation, the petitioner would
offices or positions in addition to their the enumeration of officials prohibited to not have been in the Board at all.
primary positions and to receive receive additional compensation as
compensation therefor, except in cases clarified in the Resolution of the Court There is also no merit in the allegation
where the Constitution expressly provides. dated August 1, 1991; thus, he is still that the legislature was certainly aware
Bitonio filed an MR but the COA denied entitled to receive the per diems. of the parameters set by the Court when
the same. Thus, he appealed to the SC. it enacted R.A. No. 7916, four (4) years
Issue: after the finality of the Civil Liberties Union
The petitioner maintains that he is entitled case. The payment of per diems was
to the payment of per diems, as R.A. No. Whether or not the COA correctly clearly an express grant in favor of the
7916 specifically and categorically disallowed the per diems received by the members of the Board of Directors which
provides for the payment of a per diem petitioner for his attendance in the the petitioner is entitled to receive.
for the attendance of the members of PEZA Board of Directors meetings as
the Board of Directorsat board representative of the Secretary of Labor. It is a basic tenet that any legislative
meetings of PEZA. The petitioner enactment must not be repugnant to the
contends that this law is presumed to be Held: highest law of the land which is the
valid; unless and until the law 1. Yes. The Secretary of Labor, who sits in Constitution. No law can render nugatory
is declared unconstitutional, it remains in an ex officio capacity as member of the Constitution because the Constitution
effect and binding for all intents and the Board of Directors of the Philippine is more superior to a statute. If a law
purposes. Neither can this law be Export Processing Zone (PEZA), is happens to infringe upon or violate the
rendered nugatory on the basis of a prohibited from receiving any fundamental law, courts of justice may
mere memorandum circular COA compensation for this additional office, step in to nullify its effectiveness. It is the
Memorandum No. 97-038 issued by the because his services are already paid for task of the Court to see to it that the law
COA. The petitioner stresses that R.A. No. and covered by the compensation must conform to the Constitution.
 incompatible offices. applicable to the PCGG Chairman or to
The framers of R.A. No. 7916 must have the CPLC?
realized the flaw in the law which is the Elma alleged that the strict prohibition
reason why the law was later amended against holding multiple positions 3. Does the ruling that
by R.A. No. 8748. Under the amended provided under Section 13, Article VII of the concurrent appointments as PCGG
law, the members of the Board of the 1987 Constitution applies only to Chairman and CPLC are unconstitutional,
Directors was increased from 8 to 13, heads of executive departments, their for being incompatible offices, render
specifying therein that it is the undersecretaries and assistant both appointments void?
undersecretaries of the secretaries; it does not cover other public
different Departments who should sit officials given the rank of Secretary, 4. Is there a need to refer the case to the
as board members of the PEZA. The Undersecretary, or Assistant Secretary. Court en banc?
option of designating his representative
to the Board by the different Cabinet He also claimed that it is Section 7, par. 2, Held:
Secretaries was deleted. Likewise, the last Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution that 1. No. The concurrent appointment to
paragraph as to the payment of per should be applied in his case. This these offices is in violation of Section 7,
diems to the members of the Board of provision, according to him, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987
Directors was also deleted, considering would allow a public officer to hold Constitution, since these
that such stipulation was clearly in multiple positions if (1) the law allows are incompatible offices. An
conflict with the proscription set by the the concurrent appointment of the said incompatibility exists between the
Constitution. official; and (2) the primary functions of positions of the PCGG Chairman and the
either position allows CPLC. The duties of the CPLC
Public Interest Center vs Elma such concurrent appointment. Since include giving independent and impartial
there exists a close relation between the legal advice on the actions of the heads
Elma was appointed as Chairman of the two positions and there is no of various executive departments and
PCGG on 30 October 1998. Thereafter, incompatibility between them, the agencies and to review investigations
during his tenure as PCGG Chairman, he primary functions of either position involving heads of executive
was appointed as Chief Presidential would allow respondent departments and agencies, as well as
Legal Counsel (CPLC). He accepted the Elma's concurrentappointments to both other Presidential appointees. The PCGG
second appointment, but waived any positions. He further add that the is, without question, an agency under the
renumeration that he may receive as appointment of the CPLC among Executive Department. Thus, the actions
CPLC. incumbent public officials is an accepted of the PCGG Chairman are subject to the
practice. review of the CPLC. As CPLC, respondent
Petitioner questions Elma will be required to give his
Elma's concurrent appointments as Issues: legal opinion on his own actions as
PCGG Chairman and CPLC. They PCGG Chairman and review any
contend that the appointments 1. Can the PCGG Chairman concurrently investigation conducted by the
contravene Section 13, Article VII and hold the position of CPLC? Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, which
Section 7, par. 2, Article IX-B of the 1987 may involve himself as PCGG Chairman.
Constitution. Petitioners also maintained 2. Is the strict prohibition under Section 13, In such cases, questions on his impartiality
that respondent Elma was holding Article VII of the 1987 Constitution will inevitably be raised. This is the
situation that the law seeks to avoid in are still prohibited under Section 7, Article
imposing the prohibition against holding Appointment to the position of PCGG IX-B, which covers all appointive and
incompatible offices. Chairman is not required by the primary elective officials, due to the
2. The strict prohibition under Section 13, functions of the CPLC, and vice versa. incompatibility between the primary
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is not The primary functions of the PCGG functions of the offices of the PCGG
applicable to the PCGG Chairman nor to Chairman involve the recovery of ill- Chairman and the CPLC. (Public Interest
the CPLC, as neither of them is gotten wealth accumulated by former Center vs. Elma, G. R. No. 138965, June
a secretary, undersecretary, nor President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his family 30, 2006)
an assistant secretary, even if the former and associates, the investigation of graft
may have the same rank as the latter and corruption cases assigned to him by 3. The ruling that
positions. the President, and the adoption of the concurrent appointments as PCGG
measures to prevent the occurrence of Chairman and CPLC are unconstitutional,
Granting that the prohibition under corruption. On the other hand, the for being incompatible offices, does not
Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 primary functions of the CPLC render both appointments void. Following
Constitution is applicable to the present encompass a different matter, that is, the the common-law rule on incompatibility
case, the defect in respondent review and/or drafting of legal orders of offices, respondent Elma had, in effect,
Elma's concurrent appointments to the referred to him by the President. And vacated his first office as PCGG
incompatible offices of the PCGG while respondent Elma did not receive Chairman when he accepted the
Chairman and the CPLC would even be additional compensation in connection second office as CPLC.
magnified when seen through the more with his position as CPLC, he did not act
stringent requirements imposed by the as either CPLC or PGCC Chairman in an
said constitutional provision. The said ex-officio capacity. The fact that 4. There also is no merit in the
section allows the concurrent holding of a separate appointment had to be respondents’ motion to refer the case to
positions only when: (1) provided for made for respondent Elma to qualify as the Court en banc. What is in question in
under the Constitution, such as Section 3, CPLC negates the premise that he is the present case is the constitutionality of
Article VII, authorizing the Vice-President acting in an ex-officio capacity. respondent
to become a member of the Cabinet; or Elma’s concurrent appointments, and not
(2) the second post is required by the In sum, the prohibition in Section 13, the constitutionality of any treaty, law or
primary functions of the first appointment Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does agreement. The mere application
and is exercised in an ex-officio not apply to respondent Elma since of constitutional provisions does not
capacity [which denotes an act done in neither the PCGG Chairman nor the require the case to be heard and
an official character, or as CPLC is a Cabinet secretary, decided en banc. (Public Interest Center
a consequence of office, and without undersecretary, or assistant secretary. vs. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, March 5, 2007)
any other appointment or authority than Even if this Court assumes, arguendo, that
that conferred by the office]. Although Section 13, Article VII is applicable to
respondent Elma waived receiving respondent Elma, he still could not be G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
renumeration for the second appointed concurrently to the offices of Marcos, petitioner
appointment, the primary functions of the the PCGG appointments in question are VS.
PCGG Chairman do not require his not covered by Section 13, Article VII of Manglapus, respondent (Part 1)
appointment as CPLC. the 1987 Constitution, said appointments
Facts: was made in the interest of national power to execute the laws, the
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos security, public safety and health. appointing power to grant reprieves,
was deposed from the presidency via the Petitioner also claimed that the President commutations and pardons… (art VII
non-violent “people power” revolution acted outside her jurisdiction. secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution
and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his According to the Marcoses, such act outlines tasks of the president, this list is
deathbed, has signified his wish to return deprives them of their right to life, liberty, not defined & exclusive. She has residual
to the Philippines to die. But President property without due process and equal & discretionary powers not stated in the
Corazon Aquino, considering the dire protection of the laws. They also said that Constitution which include the power to
consequences to the nation of his return it deprives them of their right to travel protect the general welfare of the
at a time when the stability of which according to Section 6, Article 3 of people. She is obliged to protect the
government is threatened from various the constitution, may only be impaired by people, promote their welfare &
directions and the economy is just a court order. advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5
beginning to rise and move forward, has Issue: of the Constitution). Residual powers,
stood firmly on the decision to bar the Whether or not, in the exercise of the according to Theodore Roosevelt,
return of Marcos and his family. powers granted by the Constitution, the dictate that the President can do
Aquino barred Marcos from returning due President may prohibit the Marcoses from anything which is not forbidden in the
to possible threats & following returning to the Philippines. Constitution (Corwin, supra at
supervening events: Whether or not the President acted 153), inevitable to vest discretionary
failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by arbitrarily or with grave abuse of powers on the President (Hyman,
Marcos leaders discretion amounting to lack or excess of American President) and that the
channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists jurisdiction when she determined that the president has to maintain peace during
plan of Marcoses to return w/ return of the Marcoses to the Philippines times of emergency but also on the day-
mercenaries aboard a chartered plane poses a serious threat to national interest to-day operation of the State.
of a Lebanese arms dealer. This is to and welfare and decided to bar their The rights Marcoses are invoking are not
prove that they can stir trouble from afar return. absolute. They’re flexible depending on
Honasan’s failed coup Decision: the circumstances. The request of the
Communist insurgency movements No to both issues. Petition dismissed. Marcoses to be allowed to return to the
secessionist movements in Mindanao Ratio: Philippines cannot be considered in the
devastated economy because of Separation of power dictates that each light solely of the constitutional provisions
accumulated foreign debt department has exclusive powers. guaranteeing liberty of abode and the
plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies According to Section 1, Article VII of the right to travel, subject to certain
Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the exceptions, or of case law which clearly
and prohibition to order the respondents executive power shall be vested in the never contemplated situations even
to issue them their travel documents and President of the Philippines.” However, it remotely similar to the present one. It
prevent the implementation of President does not define what is meant by must be treated as a matter that is
Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from “executive power” although in the same appropriately addressed to those residual
returning in the Philippines. Petitioner article it touches on exercise of certain unstated powers of the President which
questions Aquino’s power to bar his return powers by the President, i.e., the power are implicit in and correlative to the
in the country. He also questioned the of control over all executive paramount duty residing in that office to
claim of the President that the decision departments, bureaus and offices, the safeguard and protect general welfare.
In that context, such request or demand Consti to all individuals, whether patriot, Manglapus, respondent (Part 2)
should submit to the exercise of a homesick, prodigal, tyrant, etc.
broader discretion on the part of the Military representatives failed to show Facts:
President to determine whether it must be that Marcos’ return would pose a threat In its decision dated September 15, 1989,
granted or denied. to national security. Fears were mere the Court by a vote of eight to seven,
For issue number 2, the question for the conjectures. dismissed the petition, after finding that
court to determine is whether or not there Residual powers – but the executive’s the President did not act arbitrarily or with
exist factual basis for the President to powers were outlined to limit her powers grave abuse of discretion in determining
conclude that it was in the national & not expand. that the return of former President Marcos
interest to bar the return of the Marcoses Paras, Dissenting and his family pose a threat to national
in the Philippines. It is proven that there AFP has failed to prove danger which interest and welfare and in prohibiting
are factual bases in her decision. The would allow State to impair Marcos’ right their return to the Philippines. On
supervening events that happened to return to the Philippines. . September 28, 1989, Marcos died in
before her decision are factual. The Family can be put under house arrest & in Honolulu, Hawaii.
President must take preemptive measures the event that one dies, he/she should be President Corazon Aquino issued a
for the self-preservation of the country & buried w/in 10 days. statement saying that in the interest of
protection of the people. She has to Untenable that without a legislation, right the safety of those who will take the
uphold the Constitution. to travel is absolute & state is powerless to death of Marcos in widely and
Fernan, Concurring restrict it. It’s w/in police power of the passionately conflicting ways, and for the
The president’s power is not fixed. Limits state to restrict this right if national tranquility and order of the state and
would depend on the imperatives of security, public safety/health demands society, she did not allow the remains of
events and not on abstract theories of that such be restricted. It can’t be Marcos to be brought back in the
law. We are undergoing a critical time absolute & unlimited all the time. It can’t Philippines.
and the current problem can only be be arbitrary & irrational. A motion for Reconsideration was filed by
answerable by the President. No proof that Marcos’ return would the petitioners raising the following
Threat is real. Return of the Marcoses endanger national security or public arguments:
would pose a clear & present danger. safety. Fears are speculative & military Barring their return would deny them their
Thus, it’s the executive’s responsibility & admits that it’s under control. Filipinos inherent right as citizens to return to their
obligation to prevent a grave & serious would know how to handle Marcos’ country of birth and all other rights
threat to its safety from arising. return. guaranteed by the Constitution to all
We can’t sacrifice public peace, order, Padilla, Dissenting Filipinos.
safety & our political & economic gains Sarmiento, Dissenting The President has no power to bar a
to give in to Marcos’ wish to die in the President’s determination that Marcos’ Filipino from his own country; if she has,
country. Compassion must give way to return would threaten national security she had exercised it arbitrarily.
the other state interests. should be agreed upon by the court. There is no basis for barring the return of
Cruz, Dissenting Such threat must be clear & present. the family of former President Marcos.
As a citizen of this country, it is Marcos’ Issue:
right to return, live & die in his own G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989 Whether or not the motion for
country. It is a right guaranteed by the Marcos, petitioner reconsideration that the Marcoses be
VS.
allowed to return in the Philippines be FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON. RAUL to-day problems of maintaining peace
granted. MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668) Case Digest and order and ensuring domestic
Decision: Facts: tranquility in times when no foreign foe
No. The Marcoses were not allowed to appears on the horizon.
return. Motion for Reconsideration denied After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed
because of lack of merit. from the presidency, he and his family The documented history of the efforts of
Ratio: fled to Hawaii. Now in his deathbed, the Marcoses and their followers to
Petitioners failed to show any compelling petitioners are asking the court to order destabilize the country bolsters the
reason to warrant reconsideration. the respondents to issue their travel conclusion that their return at this time
Factual scenario during the time Court documents and enjoin the would only exacerbate and intensify the
rendered its decision has not changed. implementation of the President’s violence directed against the state and
The threats to the government, to which decision to bar their return to the instigate more chaos.
the return of the Marcoses has been Philippines. Petitioners contend under the
viewed to provide a catalytic effect, provision of the Bill of Rights that the The State, acting through the
have not been shown to have ceased. President is without power to impair their Government, is not precluded from
Imelda Marcos also called President liberty of abode because only a court taking preemptive actions against threats
Aquino “illegal” claiming that it is may do so “within the limits prescribed by to its existence if, though still nascent they
Ferdinand Marcos who is the legal law.” Nor, according to the petitioners, are perceived as apt to become serious
president. may the President impair their right to and direct protection of the people is the
President has unstated residual powers travel because no law has authorized her essence of the duty of the government.
implied from grant of executive power. to do so.
Enumerations are merely for specifying The Supreme Court held that the
principal articles implied in the definition; Issue: President did not act arbitrarily or with
leaving the rest to flow from general grave abuse of discretion in determining
grant that power, interpreted in Does the president have the power to the return of the petitioners at the present
conformity with other parts of the bar the Marcoses from returning to the time and under present circumstances
Constitution (Hamilton). Executive unlike Philippines? poses a serious threat to national interest
Congress can exercise power from and welfare prohibiting their return to the
sources not enumerates so long as not Ruling: Philippines. The petition is DISMISSED.
forbidden by constitutional text (Myers vs.
US). This does not amount to dictatorship. The President has the obligation, under
Amendment No. 6 expressly granted the Constitution to protect the people, Ople v Torres 1998
Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 promote their welfare and advance
Constitution granted Aquino with implied national interest. The petitioner seek the attention of the
powers. court to prevent the shrinking of the right
It is within Aquino’s power to protect & This case calls for the exercise of the to privacy, Petitioner prays that the
promote interest & welfare of the people. President’s power as protector of the court invalidate Administrative Order No.
She bound to comply w/ that duty and peace. The president is not only clothed 308 entitled “Adoption of a National
there is no proof that she acted arbitrarily with extraordinary powers in times of Computerized Identification Reference
emergency, but is also tasked with day- System” on two important constitutional
grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the burdened by an unerasable record of his and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
power of Congress to legislate, and two, past and his limitations. In a way, the and no search warrant or warrant of
it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s threat is that because of its record- arrest shall issue except upon probable
protected zone. keeping, the society will have lost its cause to be determined personally by
benign capacity to forget.” 89 Oblivious the judge after examination under oath
Issue: Whether the implementation of AO to this counsel, the dissents still say we or affirmation of the complainant and the
No. 308 violates the Rights to Privacy should not be too quick in labelling the witnesses he may produce, and
enshrined in the constitution? right to privacy as a fundamental right. particularly describing the place to be
We close with the statement that the searched and the persons or things to be
Held: Yes, A.O. No. 308 cannot pass right to privacy was not engraved in our seized.
constitutional muster as an administrative Constitution for flattery Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
legislation because facially it violates the changing the same within the limits
right to privacy. The essence of privacy is HELD: prescribed by law shall not be impaired
the “right to be let alone.” The right to except upon lawful order of the court.
privacy as such is accorded recognition Yes. Neither shall the right to travel be
independently of its identification with impaired except in the interest of
liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of The right to privacy as such is accorded national security, public safety, or public
constitutional protection. The potential for recognition independently of its health, as may be provided by law.
misuse of the data to be gathered under identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully Sec. 8. The right of the people, including
A.O. No. 308 cannot be underplayed. deserving of constitutional protection. those employed in the public and private
The right to privacy is one of the most sectors, to form unions, associations, or
threatened rights of man living in a mass The right of privacy is guaranteed in societies for purposes not contrary to law
society. The threats emanate from various several provisions of the Constitution: shall not be abridged.
sources — governments, journalists, Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to
employers, social scientists, etc. In the "Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill be a witness against himself.
case at bar, the threat comes from the of Rights
executive branch of government which
by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the Sec. 3. The privacy of communication The right to privacy is a fundamental right
people to surrender their privacy by and correspondence shall be inviolable guaranteed by the Constitution, hence, it
giving information about themselves on except upon lawful order of the court, or is the burden of government to show that
the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of when public safety or order requires A.O. No. 308 is justified by some
basic services. Given the record-keeping otherwise as prescribed by law. compelling state interest and that it is
power of the computer, only the Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is
indifferent fail to perceive the danger life, liberty, or property without due predicated on two considerations:
that A.O. No. 308 gives the government process of law, nor shall any person be
the power to compile a devastating denied the equal protection of the laws. (1) the need to provide our citizens and
dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It is Sec. 2. The right of the people to be foreigners with the facility to conveniently
timely to take note of the well-worded secure in their persons, houses, papers, transact business with basic service and
warning of Kalvin, Jr., “the disturbing and effects against unreasonable social security providers and other
result could be that everyone will live searches and seizures of whatever nature government instrumentalities and
 their Identification Systems. The purposes because in that case the assailed
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally of the uniform ID data collection and ID executive issuance, broadly drawn and
eradicate, fraudulent transactions and format are to reduce costs, achieve devoid of safeguards, was annulled solely
misrepresentations by persons seeking efficiency and reliability and ensure on the ground that the subject matter
basic services. It is debatable whether compatibility and provide convenience required legislation. As then Associate
these interests are compelling enough to to the people served by government Justice, now Chief Justice Artemio V.
warrant the issuance of A.O. No. entities. Panganiban noted in his concurring
308. Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] Petitioners allege that EO420 is opinion in Ople v. Torres, "The voting is
unconstitutional because it constitutes decisive only on the need for appropriate
But what is not arguable is the broadness, usurpation of legislative functions by the legislation, and it is only on this ground
the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. executive branch of the government. that the petition is granted by this Court."
No. 308 which if implemented will put our Furthermore, they allege that EO420
people's right to privacy in clear and infringes on the citizen’s rights to privacy. EO 420 applies only to government
present danger. entities that already maintain ID systems
ISSUE: In issuing EO 420, did the president and issue ID cards pursuant to their
The possibilities of abuse and misuse of make, alter or repeal any laws? regular functions under existing laws. EO
the PRN, biometrics and computer 420 does not grant such government
technology are accentuated when we RULING: entities any power that they do not
consider that the individual lacks control Legislative power is the authority to make already possess under existing laws. In
over what can be read or placed on his laws and to alter or repeal them. In contrast, the assailed executive issuance
ID, much less verify the correctness of the issuing EO 420, the President did not in Ople v. Torres sought to establish a
data encoded. make, alter or repeal any law but merely "National Computerized Identification
implemented and executed existing laws. Reference System,"19 a national ID system
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill EO 420 reduces costs, as well as insures that did not exist prior to the assailed
of Rights seeks to prevent. efficiency, reliability, compatibility and executive issuance. Obviously, a national
user-friendliness in the implementation of ID card system requires legislation
The petition is granted and declared the current ID systems of government entities because it creates a new national data
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled under existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply collection and card issuance system
"Adoption of a National Computerized an executive issuance and not an act of where none existed before.
Identification Reference System" null and legislation.
void for being unconstitutional. In the present case, EO 420 does not
Petitioners have not shown how EO 420 establish a national ID system but makes
KMU VS Neda will violate their right to privacy. the existing sectoral card systems of
Petitioners cannot show such violation by government entities like GSIS, SSS,
FACTS: a mere facial examination of EO 420 Philhealth and LTO less costly, more
In April 13, 2005, President Gloria because EO 420 narrowly draws the data efficient, reliable and user-friendly to the
Macapagal – Arroyo issued Executive collection, recording and exhibition while public. Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject
Order 420 requiring all government prescribing comprehensive safeguards. of executive issuance under the
agencies and government-owned Ople v. Torres18 is not authority to hold President’s constitutional power of control
corporations to streamline and harmonize that EO 420 violates the right to privacy over government entities in the Executive
department, as well as under the Issue: interpreted, as it is normally so
President’s constitutional duty to ensure Whether or not the absence of a understood, to be a mere advise,
that laws are faithfully executed recommendation of the Secretary of exhortation or indorsement, which is
. Justice can be held fatal to the essentially persuasive in character
appointment of respondent Conrado and not binding or obligatory upon the
Bermudez vs Torres Quiaoit. party to whom it is made. The
recommendation is here nothing really
Bermudez, the First Assistant Provincial Held: more than advisory in nature. The
Prosecutor of Tarlac and Officer-In- President, being the head of the
Charge of the Office of the Provincial When the Constitution or the law clothes Executive Department, could very
Prosecutor, was a recommendee of then the President with the power to appoint a well disregard or do away with the action
Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., subordinate officer, such conferment of the departments, bureaus, or offices
for the position of Provincial Prosecutor. must be understood as necessarily even in the exercise of discretionary
Quiaoit, on the other hand, would carrying with it an ample discretion of authority, and in so opting, he cannot be
appear to have had the support of then whom to appoint. It should be here said as having acted beyond the scope
Representative Jose Yap of the Second pertinent to state that the President is the of his authority.
Legislative District of Tarlac. Quiaoit head of government whose authority
emerged the victor when he was includes the power of control over all In the instant case, the recommendation
appointed by President Ramos to the executive departments, bureaus and of the Secretary of Justice and the
coveted office. Quiaoit took his oath and offices. Control means the authority of an appointment of the President are acts of
assumed office. Bermudez refused to empowered officer to alter or modify, or the Executive Department itself, and
vacate. Nonetheless, Quiaoit, performed even nullify or set aside, what a there is no sharing of power to speak of,
the duties and functions of the Office of subordinate officer has done in the the latter being deemed for all intents
Provincial Prosecutor. performance of his duties, as well as to and purposes as being merely an
substitute the judgment of the latter, as extension of the personality of the
Petitioner Bermudez filed a petition for and when the former deems it to be President
prohibition and/or injunction, and appropriate. Expressed in another way,
mandamus, challenging the the President has the power to assume Facts:
appointment of Quiaoit primarily on the directly the functions of an executive
ground that the appointment lacks the department, bureau and office. It can The Petitioner, Oscar Bermudez, and the
recommendation of the Secretary of accordingly be inferred therefrom that Respondent, Atty. Conrado Quiaoit, were
Justice prescribed under the Revised the President can interfere in the exercise aiming for the vacant position in the
Administrative Code of 1987. Section of discretion of officials under him or Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
9, Chap. II, Title III, Book IV of the Revised altogether ignore their Tarlac. Eventually, Respondent Quiaoit
Administrative Code provides that “all recommendations. was appointed by Pres. Ramos. Upon
provincial and city prosecutors and their receiving the certified photocopy of his
assistants shall be appointed by the The phrase upon recommendation of the appointment, he took his office, assumed
President upon the recommendation of Secretary, found in Section 9, Chapter II, and immediately informed it to the
the Secretary.” Title III, Book IV, of the Revised President, the Secretary of Justice and
Administrative Code, should be the Civil Service Commission. Even
though, Petitioner Bermudez refuses to in the exercise of discretionary authority,
vacate the Office of the Provincial and in so opting, he cannot be said as
Prosecutor, Respondent Quiaoit having acted beyond the scope of his
performed his functions and duties. Both authority.
the Bermudez and Quiaoit were When the Constitution or the law clothes
summoned to by then Justice Secretary the President with the power to appoint a
Teofisto Guigona Jr. in his office and subordinate officer, such conferment
ordered Bermudez to wind up his cases must be understood as necessarily
and to turn-over the contested office to carrying with it an ample discretion of
the Quiaoit. The Petitioners then filed a whom to appoint. It should be pertinent
petition challenging the appointment of to state that the President is the head of
Quiaot on the ground that his government whose authority includes the
appointment lacks the recommendation power of control over all “executive
of the Secretary of Justice prescribed departments, bureaus and offices.”
under the Revised Administrative Code of Control means the authority of an
1987. It was dismissed, as well as the empowered officer to alter or modify, or
subsequent motion for reconsideration. even nullify or set aside, what a
Hence, this recourse. subordinate officer has done in the
performance of his duties, as well as to
Issue: substitute the judgment of the latter, as
Whether or not the absence of a and when the former deems it to be
recommendation from the Secretary of appropriate. Expressed in another way,
Justice can be held fatal to the the President has the power to assume
appointment of the Respondent Quiaoit. directly the functions of an executive
department, bureau and office. It can
Ruling: accordingly be inferred therefrom that
No, the phrase “upon recommendation the President can interfere in the exercise
of the Secretary” found in Section 9, of discretion of officials under him or
Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the Revised altogether ignore their
Administrative Code should be recommendations.
interpreted as a mere advise which is
essentially persuasive in character and
not binding or obligatory upon the party
to whom it is made. The
recommendation here is nothing really
more than advisory in nature. The
President, being the head of the
Executive Department, could very well
disregard or do away with the action of
the departments, bureaus or offices even