94 Phil LJ289

DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Oct 12 07:21:42 2022
SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline
Citations:
Bluebook 21st ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy, 94 PHIL. L.J. 289 (2021).
ALWD 7th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy, 94 Phil. L.J. 289 (2021).
APA 7th ed.

Artiaga, J. M. (2021). Presidential succession and its constitutional dilemma:
averting crisis in democratic legitimacy. Philippine Law Journal, 94(2), 289-339.
Chicago 17th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, "Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy," Philippine Law Journal 94, no. 2 (May
2021): 289-339
McGill Guide 9th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, "Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy" (2021) 94:2 Phil LJ 289.
AGLC 4th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, 'Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy' (2021) 94(2) Philippine Law Journal 289
MLA 9th ed.

Artiaga, Juan Paolo M. "Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy." Philippine Law Journal, vol. 94, no. 2,
May 2021, pp. 289-339. HeinOnline.
OSCOLA 4th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga, 'Presidential Succession and Its Constitutional Dilemma:
Averting a Crisis in Democratic Legitimacy' (2021) 94 Phil LJ 289
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
DILEMMA: AVERTING A CRISIS IN
DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY*
Juan Paolo M. Artiaga**
ABSTRACT
Under the Constitution, only the vice-president can fully succeed

the presidency upon the death of the president. While there is a
"succession" scheme in the event that the Offices of the President
and the Vice-President become simultaneously vacant, the officials
who are next in the line of succession-the senate president, or in
his or her absence, the house speaker-will only serve as "acting
president" until a special election is conducted within a specific
timeframe. But what happens when the senate president and the
house speaker perish together with the president and the vice-
president? Two bills were filed in the 18th Congress in an attempt
to address this question. These bills expressly sought to adopt the
American practice of having a "designated survivor" who would be
sequestered to a secure location during major government events.
However, it is argued that reference to U.S. succession laws is
misplaced since the Philippine law on presidential succession has
long diverged from its American counterpart. Furthermore, these
bills would only address one of the two scenarios that may lead to
a constitutional crisis, in the event of simultaneous vacancies in the
top four elective offices of the Philippine government. The other
scenario, which is argued as a fatal flaw in drafting the Constitution,
may only be remedied through a constitutional amendment.
* Cite asJuan Paolo Artiaga, PresidentialSuccession and its ConstitutionalDilemma:Averting

a Crisis in DemocraticLegitimay, 94 PHIL. L.J. 289, [page cited] (2021).
Political Affairs Officer, House of Representatives; Lecturer on Public
Administration (Part-Time), College of Liberal Arts, Bicol College;J.D., University of the
Philippines (2020); B. Public Administration, University of the Philippines (2015); Internal
Vice President, UP Law Student Government (2018-2019).
The author would like to thank Atty. Christine Faith Tango and Atty. Victor Enrique
Bolinao for their inputs in the initial draft of this Note. The author dedicates this Note to his
late grandfather, Pedro M. Marcellana, Jr., who inspired him to develop interest in government
and public service.
289
290 PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 94
'Men may die, but the fabrics of our free

institutions remain unshaken. No higher or
more assuringproof could exist of the strength
andpermanence ofpopulargovernment than the
fact that though the chosen ofthepeople be struck
down[,] his constitutionalsuccessoris peacefully
installed without shock or strain except the
sorrow which mourns the bereavement."
Chester A. Arthur1
INTRODUCTION
Congress is once again in the public spotlight after the filing of two
bills aiming to extend the presidential line of succession. These bills resurfaced
amidst the uncertainty surrounding the status of President Rodrigo Duterte's
health, 2 and the renewed calls for a revolutionary government by his
supporters. 3 The spike in public interest was expected, but who would have
thought that two bills of significant importance would be inspired by a
Western political drama?
The American television show "Designated Survivor" followed the

story of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Tom Kirkman, who,
on the day of the U.S. State of the Union Address, was informed that he was
about to be unceremoniously relieved from his post. The White House Chief
of Staff also informed Secretary Kirkman that the President had chosen him
as the "designated survivor." As the "designated survivor," Kirkman was
inconspicuously ushered to a safe location while every other person in the line
of presidential succession attended the State of the Union Address. However,
during the President's speech, a bomb planted by a terrorist exploded,
destroying the U.S. Capitol and killing the President, Vice-President, Speaker
of the House, Senate President pro tempore, and all other members of the
1 Chester Arthur, Address Upon Assuming the Office of the President of the United
States, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY PROJECT, Sept. 22, 1881, at
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204710.
2 Raissa Robles, If Duterte is too ill to lead the Philippines, who is next in line forpower?, S.
CHINA MORNING POST, Oct. 9, 2018, available at https://www.scmp.com/week-
asia/politics/article/2167573/if-duterte-too-ill-lead-philippines-who-next-line-power.
3 Trisha Mostoles & Aleta Nieva Nishimori, Group of Duterte supporters calls for
revolutionay government, larnches people's initiative, ABS-CBN NEWS, Aug. 22, 2020, at
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/22/20/group-of-duterte-supporters-calls-for-
revolutionary-government-launches -peoples-initiative.
2021] PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION 291
Cabinet. Thus, what should have been his last night as a Cabinet official
became the beginning of Kirkman's presidency. 4
While the show's plot is purely fictional, the scenario is not unlikely
to happen in the Philippines. Is it remote? Perhaps. Is it impossible in an era
where several countries have developed more advanced weapons technology?
No. In fact, in 2007, an improvised bomb exploded within the premises of
the House of Representatives-the venue of the annual State of the Nation
Address ("SONA")-just as a regular session ended. This resulted in the
death of then-Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar.5
At present, the COVID-19 pandemic poses a similarly grave threat.

It has not only halted the economy of almost all countries, but has also
afflicted many heads of government across the globe.6 No less than former
U.S. President Donald Trump has tested positive for COVID-19.7 In the
Philippines, at least two members 8 of the House of Representatives have died
from COVID-19, while at least five senators9 and several other
4 DesignatedSurvivor: Pilot (ABC television broadcast, Sept. 21, 2016).

s Philippine congressman assassinated, AL JAZEERA, Nov. 13, 2007, at
https://www. aljazeera.com/news/2007/ 11/13/philippine-congressman-assassinated-2.
6 Among other top officials who have contracted the virus are: President Jair
Bolsonaro of Brazil, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prince Charles of the United Kingdom,
Vice-President Eshaq Jahangiri of Iran, Prince Albert II of Monaco, and President Juan
Orlando Hernandez of Honduras. See Vincent Wood, Trump coronavirus: Which world leaders and
ofidals have had Covid-19?, THE INDEPENDENT, Oct. 2, 2020, available at
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-world-leaders-trump-jair-
bolsonaro-boris-johnson-covid-19-a9607071.html; Darcy Palder & Amy Mackinnon,
Coronavirus in the Comdors of Power, FOREIGN POL'Y, Mar. 18, 2020, available at
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/ 18/coronavirus -corridors-power-which-world-leaders-
have-covid-19/; Kayla Epstein & Kelly McLaughlin, These 13 government offidals and world leaders
have reportedly tested positive for COVID-19, INSIDER, Mar. 28, 2020, at
https: //www.busines sinsider.com/coronavirus-government-officials-around-the-world-test-
positive-2020-3.
? Katanga Johns on & David Lawder, Factbox: White House staff top Republicans who have
tested positivefor COVID-99, REUTERS, Oct. 4, 2020, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
health-coronavirus-trump-exposure-fac/factbox-white-house-staff-top-republicans-who-
have-tested-positive-for-covid-1 9-idUSKBN26POP5.
8 Sorsogon Rep. Ramos dies after COVID-i9 diagnosis, CNN PHIL., Sept. 8, 2020, at
https://cnnphilippines.com/news /2020/9/8/Sorsogon-Rep.-Ditas-Ramos-dies-.html?
fbcid=IwAR2yhxqUpK2-RLfgtBpEaJcSk4gQQOU9-2HOvtgoNQ9MHLr8ewsOriwKdSs;
Mara Cepeda, Senior Citzens lawmaker Francisco DatolJrdes of COVID-19, RAPPLER, Aug. 10,
2020, athttps://www.rappler.com/nation/senior-citizens-lawmakers-francisco-datol-jr-dies.
9 Senators Miguel Zubiri, Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Sonny Angara, Ramon
"Bong" Revilla,Jr., and Senator Bato dela Rosa had been infected with the virus. See Joyce Ilas,
Senator Bato dela Rosa catches COVID-i9, CNN PHIL., Nov. 21, 2020, at
https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/11/21 /ronald-bato-dela-ros a-COVID-
19.html.
representatives have been infected. 10 The ongoing pandemic, coupled with

the uncertainties surrounding the 75 year-old President's health in the past
few months,11 makes it prudent to revisit the rules on presidential succession,
as they could soon be put to the test.
Another reason to inquire into this topic is the general public's lack
of understanding of the Philippine rules on presidential succession. A cursory
look at the comments section of reputable media outlets covering the
aforementioned bills would show that despite the ordinary words employed
by the Constitution, there seems to be confusion regarding the provision's
proper interpretation. 12 This is unsurprising, given that some of the leading
commentaries on the 1987 Constitution lack substantial discussion on the
provisions governing presidential succession, particularly Article VII, Section
8.13
Finally, presidential succession is an important topic to discuss as the

enactment of a statute that would extend the presidential line of succession is
a duty imposed by the Constitution on Congress. 14 Despite the use of the
mandatory word "shall" in the 1987 Constitution, no such law has been
enacted in the past 34 years to extend the presidential line of succession. Thus,
this Note aims to further the discourse on the topic that would hopefully
prove useful to Philippine legislators and future drafters of constitutional
amendments.
Part I provides a brief overview of the presidential succession laws in

the Philippines, starting with the 1935 Constitution and culminating with the
1987 Constitution. The Philippine rules on succession will be compared with
10 Sorsogon congresswoman Ditas Ramos testspositivefor coronavirus, RAPPLER, Sept. 6, 2020,

at https://www.rappler.com/nation/sorsogon-congresswoman-ditas-ramos-positive-
coronavirus.
11 See De Leon v. Duterte, G.R. No. 252118, May 8, 2020.
12 See CONST. art. VII, § 8, ¶ 1.
13 In his commentary, Fr. Bernas explained that Section 10 is another rule that deals
with the "rather rare probability of having a vacancy in both the presidency and vice-
presidency." See JOAQUIN BERNAS, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 859 (2006 ed.). Justice Cruz also presented the provision
without any commentary. See also ISAGANI CRUZ, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 354-55 (2014).
14 CONST. art. VII, § 7, ¶ 6. "The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in
which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President
shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials
mentioned in the next preceding paragraph."
Art. VII, § 8, ¶ 2. "The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President
in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve
until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject
to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President."
those of the United States, with the observation that the former has paralleled
the development of its statutory succession rules to that of the latter. In 1987,
however, the Philippines adopted the framework of U.S. presidential
succession law, not as a statute, but as a provision in the Constitution itself.
This elevation to constitutional status has changed both how the provision is
interpreted and how it could be remedied in case of conflict.
Part II distinguishes among the kinds of presidential successors: the

constitutional successor, the constitutional acting successor, and the statutory
successor. It is argued that statutory successors can only assume the role of
acting president if either the senate president or the house speaker-the
constitutional acting successors-had validly assumed the position of acting
president beforehand.
Part III introduces the concept of "constitutional crises" as

understood in the legal academic field, and contrasts it with how it is used by
officials and courts in the Philippines. This Part will introduce two possible
scenarios that would cause a power vacuum, which would then lead to a
constitutional crisis. These are: (1) when either the senate president or speaker
of the house assumes the role of acting president and subsequently dies,
resigns, or becomes permanently incapacitated, and there is no statute
extending the line of succession; and (2) when the Offices of the President,
Vice-President, Senate President, and Speaker of the House simultaneously
become vacant, regardless of whether there is a statute extending the line of
succession. Based on these scenarios, the it is posited that the problem with
Philippine presidential succession rules is not the absence of legislation
extending the line of succession, but the way the wording of the present
Constitution allows for a power vacuum.
Part IV supports the earlier discussion by examining the 1987

Constitution to determine whether it is capable of addressing the power
vacuum and consequent constitutional crises-a query that this Note answers
in the negative. There is no constitutional mechanism that allows any person
who is not the vice-president, the senate president, or the speaker of the house
to assume the presidency in order to remedy the said crises.
Part V circles back to the two bills filed in the 18th Congress that
claim to address the possibility of a "constitutional crisis." This Part concludes
that, at best, Senate Bill No. 98215 addresses only one of the two possible
15 S. No. 982, 18th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019). An Act Prescribing the Order of
Presidential Succession.
events that will lead to such a crisis. Meanwhile, House Bill No. 406216 fails
to address either scenario. This discussion affirms the author's thesis that
legislation itself is not the solution to avert the constitutional crises. Instead,
the risk of having a power vacuum can only be remedied through a
constitutional amendment.
Part VI discusses the legal and policy considerations that must be

addressed by future drafters of presidential succession rules. Given the
similarities in government structure and succession rules between the
Philippines and the United States, this Note draws from the experience of the
latter to be used in identifying such issues.
Finally, in Part VII, the recommendations are provided on how to

proceed with the constitutional amendment.
I. HISTORY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION LAWS
This part of the Note will delve into the Philippines' different rules
on presidential succession since 1935, as provided by the different
constitutions and statutes. A brief overview of these laws would show that the
constitutional framers and lawmakers have failed to close the loopholes in our
existing presidential succession rules.
TABLE 1. History of Succession Laws

Presidential Succession
1935 Constitution7
President
Vice-President
C.A. No. 6818
President
Vice-President
*Elected by Representative
In Acting Capacity:
Secretary of Interior (temporary)
Secretary of Finance
Secretary ofjustice
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
Secretary of Public Works and Communications
Secretary of Public Instruction
Secretary of Labor19
16 H. No. 4062, 18th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019). Presidential Succession Act.
17 CONST. (1935), art. VII, § 7.
18 Com. Act No. 68 (1936), §§ 1-2.
19 Act No. 2711 (1917), § 75.
E.O. No. 39020

President
Vice-President
Secretary to the President
Secretary of Finance
Secretary of National Defense
Secretary of Justice
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
Secretary of Public Works and Communications
Secretary of Public Instruction
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Public Welfare
Rep. Act No. 18121
Vice-President
Senate President (Acting)
House Speaker (Acting)
*Elected Senator or Representative by Congress in joint session
1973 Constitution22
President
Executive Committee Headed by the Prime Minister
Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa
23
1973 Constitution (as amended)
President
Speaker of the National Assembly
1987 Constitution24
President
Vice-President
Senate President (Acting)
House Speaker (Acting)
A. 1935 Constitution
The rule on Philippine presidential succession begins with the 1935

Constitution which, for the first time, allowed Filipinos to directly elect the
first Philippine president 25 and to have complete control over the legislative
department. 26 The provision on presidential succession in the 1935
20 Exec. Order No. 390 (1941).

21 Rep. Act No. 181 (1947), § 1. An Act Prescribing the Order of Presidential
Succession.
22 CONST. (1973), art. VII, § 4.
23 CONST. (1973, amend.), art. VII, § 5.
24 CONST. art. VII, §§ 7-8.
25 Maximo Kalaw, The New Constitution of the Phippine Commonwealth, 13 FOREIGN
AFF. 687, 689 (1935).
26 The History of the Senate of the Philippines, OFFICIAL GAZ., available at
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/featured/the-history-of-the-senate-of-the-phiippines
(last visited Feb. 24, 2020). But see Act No. 2711 (1917), § 60, which authorizes the U.S.
Constitution is a near-exact copy of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the U.S.

Constitution. Section 9, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution states:
In the event of the removal of the President from office or of his

death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties
of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and
the National Assembly shall by law provide for the case of removal,
death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-
President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and
such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed or
a President shall be elected.2 7
On the other hand, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, of the U.S.

Constitution provides:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his

Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties
of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,
and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal,
Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice
President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and
such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed,
or a President shall be elected.2 8
There are minimal differences between the two provisions. These include
punctuation, capitalization, and the use of the word "Congress" instead of
"National Assembly." This was merely a matter of nomenclature, as the
Philippines had a unicameral legislature during the promulgation of the 1935
Constitution. 29 After the 1935 Constitution was amended in 1941 to reflect
the transition to a bicameral legislature, 30 its presidential succession provision
31
became identical to that of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the 1935 Constitution, the officer designated by statute to

serve as acting president would only do so until the selection of a new
president via special election. 32 However, it must be noted that because there
President to appoint a Governor-General from among the Department Secretaries in the event
of the incumbent Governor-General's incapacity.
27 CONST. (1935), art. VII, § 9.
28 U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 6.

29 Supra note 26. The unicameral legislative assembly was changed into a bicameral
one in 1941 through an amendment of the 1935 Constitution. The term was subsequently
changed from "National Assembly" to "Congress" in the amended 1935 Constitution.
30 Id.
31 Compare CONST. (1935, amend.), art. VII, § 8; with U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 6.
32 CONST. (1935), art. VII, § 9.
was no designated time frame provided for the holding of the special election,
such an election may, in theory, never materialize. Had the Offices of the
President and Vice-President become simultaneously vacant, whoever would
have succeeded as acting president based on the prevailing special law could
have finished the term without interruption. This situation may be compared
to when former U.S. President William Harrison died just a month after
assuming office. 33 Notwithstanding opposition from members of Congress
and authorities of constitutional law, Vice-President John Tyler asserted that
he had fully "succeeded" to the Presidency and was not a mere "acting
president." He then went on to serve for the remainder of the term. It should
be noted that at the time, the prevailing interpretation of the text of the U.S.
Constitution was that the vice-president does not succeed the presidency, and
can only serve as "acting president." 34 Instead, Tyler's assertion created a
precedent used by succeeding vice-presidents, which was subsequently
institutionalized in the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 35
B. Commonwealth Act No. 68
In compliance with the constitutional imperative, the National

Assembly enacted Commonwealth Act No. 68 (C.A. No. 68) in 1936. Under
this law, in the event of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the
president and the vice-president, "the National Assembly shall forthwith
convene and elect, by a majority vote of all its Members, the person or officer
who shall act as President until the President-elect or the Vice President-elect
shall have qualified, the inability removed, or a President shall have been
elected." 36 The provision also states that when the aforementioned inability
becomes permanent, "the National Assembly shall determine by resolution
whether or not a special election shall be held to elect a President." 37 Thus,
under C.A. No. 68, the legislature would decide who would act as temporary
president. The pool for the selection of such person was not limited to the
members of the National Assembly or the Cabinet. The law also ensures that
the Republic would never be without a chief executive in between the
occurrence of the vacancy and the election in the National Assembly. Section
2 thereof provides that: "pending the election of an acting president by the
33 John Feerick, The Problem of Presidential Inabeliy-Will Congress Ever Solve It?, 83
FORDHAM L. REv. 73, 74 (2015).
3
4 JOSE ARUEGO, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION 419 (1936).
35 Id.; Romeo Torres, Presidential Succession, 7 ATENEO L.J. 365, 369 (1958); JOHN
FEERICK, FROM FAILING HANDS: THE STORY OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION 88-98 (1965);
Ruth Silva, Presidential Succession and Disabil/v,21 LAw & CONTEMP. PROBS. 646, 648-49 (1956).
36 Com. Act No. 68 (1936), § 1.
37§ 1.
National Assembly, a Department Secretary, in the order of rank established

in the Administrative Code, will perform the duties of temporary President." 38
However, the problem with C.A. No. 68 was that it did not provide
for immediate special elections for the positions of president and vice-
president. This would have allowed the acting president, who was elected by
the National Assembly, to remain in power and finish the term. If Congress
had failed to elect an acting president, the temporary president-a department
secretary-could have similarly finished the term.
C. Commonwealth Act No. 671

and Executive Order 390
Commonwealth Act No. 671 (C.A. No. 671) was enacted on

December 16, 1941, in the advent of the Japanese invasion of the Philippines.
Due to the exigencies of that time, Congress felt that it was necessary to vest
the President with extraordinary powers, including the power to reorganize
the order of succession through legislation. 39 Subsequently, invoking the
aforementioned power, President Manuel L. Quezon issued Executive Order
No. 390 (E.O. No. 390) which prescribed the "order of precedence and/or
succession to the Presidency of the Philippines" 40 in case of vacancies or
inability in both the Offices of the President and Vice-President. Under E.O.
No. 390, the new line of succession, in descending order, would be the
following: Secretary to the President, Secretary of Finance, Secretary of
National Defense, Secretary of Justice, Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce, Secretary of Public Works and Communications, Secretary of
Public Instruction, Secretary of Labor, and lastly, the Secretary of Health and
Public Welfare.
The obvious difference between E.O. No. 390 and C.A. No. 68 is that
the former eliminated the necessity of Congress electing an acting president.
This was based on the fact that the members of Congress might not be able
to physically meet in the first place. However, it must be noted that the line
of succession still generally follows the order found in the Administrative
Code, but with the addition of the Secretary of National Defense and the
Secretary of Health and Public Welfare, and the removal of the Secretary of
the Interior.41
38 § 2.
39 See §§ 1-2.
40 Exec. Order No. 390 (1941),¶ 1. Prescribing the Order of Presidential Succession
and Abolishing the Department of Interior.
41 ¶ 2. "The Department of the Interior is hereby abolished and all its bureaus and
offices and their powers, functions, duties, records, documents, furniture, office equipment,
In the end, the only pragmatic effect of E.O. No. 390 was the
rearrangement of the order of succession among the department secretaries.
In reality, had C.A. No. 68 been applied in the absence of E.O. No. 390, one
of the Cabinet secretaries would still have become temporary president under
Section 2 of the former. 42 However, said Cabinet member would only serve
as acting president, since only the vice-president was allowed to fully succeed
the presidency under the 1935 Constitution. The Cabinet member could have
continued as acting president until the end of the term because the law did
not call for a special election. In any case, E.O. No. 390 should be recognized
as the law that institutionalized the succession of the Cabinet members as
acting president, instead of a mere interim president as was provided in C.A.
No. 68.
Interestingly, E.O. No. 390 made the Philippine rules on presidential

succession similar to those of the United States. During its enactment, the
prevailing law in the United States was the Succession Act of 1886.43 Under
said statute, the members of the Cabinet, beginning with the Secretary of
State, were installed as the immediate successors in the absence of both the
president and the vice-president. 44
and property shall be distributed in Commonwealth Act Number Six hundred sixty, effective
January 1, 1942."
42 Com. Act No. 68 (1936), § 2.
43 24 Stat. 1, Pub. Acts of the 491h Cong. of the U.S. [hereinafter "Presidential
Succession Act of 1886"] (1886). See also Ruth Silva, The PresidentialSuccession Act of 1947, 47
MICH. L. REv. 451, 452 (1949); FEERICK, supra note 35, at 140-46.
44 Presidential Succession Act of 1886, § 1. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in case of removal, death,
resignation, or inability of both the President and Vice-President of the United States, the
Secretary of State, or if there be none, or in case of his removal, death, resignation, or inability,
then the Secretary of the Treasury, or if there be none, or in case of his removal, death,
resignation, or inability, then the Secretary of War, or if there be none, or in case of his
removal, death, resignation, or inability, then the Attorney-General, or if there be none, or in
case of his removal, death, resignation, or inability, then the Postmaster-General, or if there
be none, or in case of his removal, death, resignation, or inability, then the Secretary of the
Navy, or if there be none, or in case of his removal, death, resignation, or inability, then the
Secretary of the Interior, shall act as President until the disability of the President or Vice-
President is removed or a President shall be elected: Provided, that whenever the powers and
duties of the office of President of the United States shall devolve upon any of the persons
named herein, if Congress be not then in session, or if it would not meet in accordance with
law within twenty days thereafter, it shall be the duty of the person upon whom said powers
and duties shall devolve to issue a proclamation convening Congress in extraordinary session,
giving twenty days' notice of the time of meeting." (Emphasis in the original.)
D. Republic Act No. 181
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 181 expressly repealed C.A. No. 68 and E.O.
No. 390.45 This law replaced the Cabinet members with the senate president
and the speaker of the house in the presidential line of succession. In case of
the death, permanent incapacity, or disability of the House Speaker, or if there
is none at all, R.A. No. 181 required Congress to elect among themselves an
acting president through a majority vote. 4 6
It is interesting to note that R.A. No. 181 was passed on June 21,
1947, the same year that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 was passed
in the United States. 47 This shows how both the United States and the
Philippines simultaneously shifted away from the previous practice of having
Cabinet members as immediate successors. For the United States, the
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 brought the house speaker and senate
president pro tempore back to the front of the line of succession, contrary to
preceding succession law. 48 The reason behind this change was President
Truman's argument that the acting president needed to be an elected official
with a mandate. 49
However, unlike C.A. No. 68, R.A. No. 181 does not provide as to
who will sit as temporary president pending Congress' selection of an acting
president in the absence of the senate president and the house speaker. 50 Thus,
a power vacuum would have been created from the time the vacancy existed,
until the election of an acting president by a joint session of Congress.
E. The 1973 Constitution
The 1973 Constitution reflected the shift to a parliamentary form of

government. This change consequently affected the line of presidential
succession. Article VII, Section 7 thereof states that: "In case of permanent
disability, death, removal from office or resignation of the President, the
Executive Committee headed by the Prime Minister [...] shall exercise the
4s Rep. Act No. 181 (1947), § 2.

46 § 1.
47 Paolo Celeridad, Convention v. Coherence: An Alternative Perspective on Philippine
PresidentialSuccession, 84 PHIL. L.J. 1077, 1090-91 (2010).
48 Silva, supra note 43, at 451-53; FEERICK, supra note 35, at 57-62.
49 Silva, supra note 43, at 453; FEERICK, supra note 35, at 204-05; Ser. 110, 108th US
Cong., 2nd Ses s. (2004). PresidentialSuccession Act: Heaing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution on
H. Comm. on the Jud~iary, 108th Cong. [hereinafter "Presidential Succession Act Hearing"]
(2004).
so Compare Rep. Act No. 181 (1947), § 1; with Corn. Act No. 68 (1941), § 2.
powers of the President until a President shall have been elected and
qualified." 5 1 Unlike in the previous succession laws, the 1973 Constitution
provided for a mandatory special election in case of a presidential vacancy.
The election for a new president must be held within 90 days after the vacancy
occurs. The only exception is when the vacancy occurs less than 18 months
before the end of the presidential term. The 1973 Constitution also provided
that: "In the absence of an Executive Committee, the Speaker [of the Batasang
Pambansa] shall act as the President" until a new one is elected. 52
A later amendment to the 1973 Constitution abolished the Executive

Committee and this was reflected in its succession provisions. 5 3 Here, the
Speaker of the National Assembly becomes the acting president in case a
vacancy occurs. The presidential line of succession now ends with the Speaker
and can no longer be extended by an act of Congress.
F. The 1987 Constitution
The rule on presidential succession, as presently worded in the 1987

Constitution, provides:
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or

resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the
President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent
disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President
and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his
inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then
act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have
been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as

President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of
the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-
President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to
the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President.5 4
51 CONST. (1973), art. VII, § 7, ¶ 1.

52 Art. VII, § 7, ¶ 2.
53 CONST. (1973, amend.), art. VII, § 5. "In case of permanent disability, death,
removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Speaker of the National Assembly
shall act as President until a successor has been elected for the unexpired portion of the term
of the President."
54 CONST. art. VII, § 8.
According to Jose Aruego, the 1987 Constitution made the real

intention of the framers of the 1935 Constitution clear: that the vice-president
fully succeeds the presidency in case of death, permanent disability, removal
from office, or resignation of the president.55
Nevertheless, the provision deserves closer inspection because there

still seems to be some confusion. The present Constitution expressly provides
that only the vice-president fully succeeds upon the president's death as
denoted by the words "shall become the President." 56 The treatment should
be differentiated from that of the senate president or the house speaker, or
the officer installed as successor through special law. The senate president, or
in his absence, the house speaker, shall only "act" as president and only "until
the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified." 57
The same treatment is applicable to the "president" who shall serve

in the absence of an acting president, as may be provided by statute. The
second paragraph of Article VII, Section 8 makes it clear that this "president"
is also "subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the
Acting President" 58 and shall serve only "until the President or the Vice-
President shall have been elected and qualified." 59 Thus, whoever becomes
successor as a result of the special law extending the presidential line of
succession shall only serve as an acting president, and does not fully succeed
to the presidency, unlike the vice-president.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Article VII, Section 8 of the

1987 Constitution and the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is that the
latter expressly provides that the acting successor, without prejudice to
subsequent bumping and supplantation, will finish the remainder of the
term. 60 This is not the case under the 1987 Constitution, which provides that
ss ARUEGO, supra note 34. See BERNAS, supra note 13, at 839. "[The Vice-President]
has no other function than to be prepared to assume the presidency should a vacancy in the
office arise."
56 CONST. art. VII, § 7, ¶ 4.
57 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 1.
58 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 2.
s9 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 2.
60 3 U.S.C. § 19 (c) (2006). The Presidential Succession Act of 1947. "An individual
acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) shall continue to act until the
expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that - (1) if his discharge of the powers
and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the President-
elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he shall act only until a President or Vice-
President qualifies; and (2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded
in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, then he shall act only
until the removal of the disability of one of such individuals."
unless the vacancies in the Offices of the President and Vice-President occur
within 18 months from the next presidential election, a special election must
be held within 71 days. 61 The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
reveal that the intention of the framers was for the person serving as acting
president to retain his or her original position, and revert back to it upon the
conclusion of the special election. 62
1. As Inspired by the U.S. Presidential

Succession Act of 1947
Both the 1935 Philippine Constitution and the U.S. Constitution did
not explicitly provide for a constitutional successor in the absence of the
president and vice-president. Instead, both Constitutions directed their
respective legislatures to extend the line of succession. Moreover, the enabling
statutes from 1935 to 1947 for both countries exclusively installed Cabinet
members in the line of succession.
Enter Vice-President Harry Truman, who became a beneficiary of the

succession provision of the U.S. Constitution upon the death of his
predecessor President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 63 Shortly after ascending to the
presidency, President Truman spoke before Congress and advocated for the
enactment of a new presidential succession law that would place the house
speaker on top of the list of presidential successors, followed by the senate
president pro tempore, who traditionally is the longest-serving senator of the
party holding the Senate majority. 64 While the Cabinet members were still
included in the line of succession, they were relegated behind the two
61 Congress shall meet three days after the occurrence of a vacancy in the positions
of the President and Vice-President. Within seven days therefrom, Congress must enact a law
calling a special election, which must not be held later than 60 days from such call. This puts
the maximum time for the election of a President and Vice-President at 71 days. See CONST.
art. VII, § 10.
62 2 RECORD CONST. COMM'N 492 (July 31, 1986).
63 Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supranote 49, at 12;John Fortier & Norman
Ornstein, PresidentialSuccession and CongressionalLeaders,53 CATH. U. L. REv. 993, 997 (2004).
64 FEERICK, supra note 35, at 205. "[B]y reason of the tragic death of the late
President, it now lies within my power to nominate the person who would be my immediate
successor in the event of my own death or inability to act. I do not believe that in a democracy
this power should rest with the Chief Executive. Insofar as possible, the office of the President
should be filled by an elective officer. There is no officer in our system of government, besides
the President and the Vice-President, who has been elected by all the voters of the country.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is elected in his own district, is also elected
to be the presiding officer of the House by a vote of all the Representatives of all the people
of the Country. As a result, I believe that the Speaker is the official in the Federal Government
whose selection, next to that of the President and Vice-President, can be most accurately said
to stem from the people themselves."
aforementioned legislative officials. 65 President Truman's argument was that

a president should not be able to appoint his immediate successor, which is
what would happen in the event that a Cabinet member, who is a presidential
appointee, succeeds as acting president. 66 Congress heeded Truman's plea and
enacted the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947-which closely
resembles the first presidential succession law enacted in 1792.67
President Truman's argument became the basis for the Philippine

Congress to enact the R.A. No. 181.68 This later served as the inspiration for
Article VII, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution, which installed the senate
president and the house speaker in the immediate line of succession after the
vice-president. 69
However, while the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947

included in the list of succession members of the Cabinet and provided the
order thereof, the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission decided
to leave to the wisdom of the Philippine Congress the determination of the
line of succession after the house speaker. 70 It must also be noted that in the
U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the house speaker precedes the
senate president pro tempore71 who, in turn, must be differentiated from the
65 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(1). "If, by reason of death, resignation, removal

from office,
inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore to act as President under
subsection (b) of this section, then the officer of the United States who is highest on the
following list, and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties of the office
of President shall act as President: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of
Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of
Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security."
66 Feerick, stupra note 33.
67 See Presidential Succession Act, U.S. SENATE WEBSITE, at https://www.
senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/PresidentialSuccession_Act.htm (last visited Feb.
25, 2021). "On July 18, 1947, President Harry Truman signed the Presidential Succession Act.
The original act of 1792 had placed the Senate president pro tempore and Speaker of the
House in the line of succession, but in 1886 Congress had removed them. The 1947 law
reinserted those officials but placed the Speaker ahead of the president pro tempore."
68 Celeridad, supra note 47, at 1092. "Congressman Enrique Medina's explanatory
note uses Truman's arguments calling for a line of succession that is 'more democratic and
more in consonance with the spirit of our institutions, because while department secretaries
are not elected by the people, the officials authorized by this measure to succeed the President
are so elected."'
70 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 2.
71 3 U.S.C. 19 (b).
senate president, who is also the vice-president and is already in the line of
succession. 72
2. As a Pointof Divergencefrom American Tradition
The U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 has been the subject of
debate for decades. 73 Several authorities of American constitutional law have
argued against its constitutionality and have questioned the wisdom of the
policy, particularly the inclusion of legislative officials in the line of
succession. 74 The same constitutional attacks cannot hold water in our
jurisdiction because it is paradoxical to call "unconstitutional" what is exactly
provided for by the Constitution. 75 Consequently, while our current
presidential succession rules have been inspired by the United States, the fact
that their rules are merely contained in a statute, while ours have been enacted
as a provision of the 1987 Constitution has become the point of diversion
with U.S. tradition and interpretation.
Ironically, the framers thought that they were making Article VII,
Section 8 of the Constitution as flexible as its counterpart in the U.S.
Constitution 76 by only including the senate president and the house speaker
in the line of succession and leaving to the Congress the power to extend it,
to wit:
MR. REGALADO. We will appreciate the formulation of an

amendment to that. But the reason why we did so is that we felt
that a constitutional provision specifically stating the order of
succession after the Vice-President would make any future changes
a little less flexible, because then we will have to have a plebiscite
to amend the Constitution. In the United States, up to now, the
order of succession after the Speaker is also provided by law, not
by a constitutional provision. 77
72 See Torres, supra note 35, at 367. Torres notes that a consideration for why R.A.
No. 181 placed the Senate President before the House Speaker in the line of succession is the
fact that the Philippine Vice-President does not preside over the Senate as is the case in the
United States.
73 See, genera/y, Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supra note 49.
74 Akhil Reed Amar & Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law
Constitutional?,48 STAN. L. REv. 113, 133 (1995). See, generally, Richard Albert, The Constitutional
Politics of PresidentialSuccession, 39 HOFSTRA L. REv. 497, 508 (2011); Fortier & Ornstein, supra
note 63, at 997-98; See also Silva, supranote 43, at 454.
75 See infra Part VI.A.
76 See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 6.
However, as discussed earlier, under the U.S. Constitution, 78 only the

vice-president is explicitly included in the line of succession. Furthermore, the
U.S. Constitution delegated to Congress the power to further extend the line
of succession. 79
Inadvertent or not, the institutionalization of the U.S. Presidential

Succession Act of 1947, through the inclusion of the senate president and the
house speaker, has molded the Philippine interpretation of the separation of
powers. Through the ratification of the Constitution by the people, as
opposed to the mere process of legislation in the United States, the Filipino
nation has accepted the capacity of Philippine legislators to succeed as acting
president.
The other consequence is that any problem arising from the current
phrasing of the Philippine rule on presidential succession will require
constitutional amendment as a solution. In contrast, the U.S. rule on
presidential succession can easily be amended or repealed through the
enactment of another succession law by the U.S. Congress.
II. DECONSTRUCTING THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSORS UNDER THE

1987 CONSTITUTION
Under the 1987 Constitution, there are three types of successors: (1)
the constitutional successor, (2) the constitutional acting successors, and (3)
the statutory successors. It is important to distinguish among the three
because the Constitution affords each type with its own conditions for their
valid assumption of the position of acting president.
TABLE 2. Succession Under the 1987 Constitution

Type Position Requisites
Constitutional Vice-President Vacancy in the Office of the President
Successor
Senate President Vacancies in the Offices of the President and

Constitutional Vice-President
Acting Vacancies in the Offices of the President, Vice-
Successors House Speaker President, and Senate President
Statutory Provided for by Vacancies in the Offices of the President and

Acting Law Vice-President, assumption of a constitutional
Successors acting successor as acting president, and the
78 U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 6.

79 See supra Part I.A.
subsequent death, permanent disability, or

resignation of the constitutional actin successor.
The first kind of successor, the constitutionalsuccessor, pertains to the

vice-president, who, following a vacancy in the Office of the President, shall
fully succeed as president.80
The second kind of successor pertains to the constitutional acting

successors. This pertains to the senate president, or, in his inability, the house
speaker.81
The third kind of successor is the statutory successor as described under

the last paragraph of Article VII, Section 8. This pertains to those who, by the
determination of Congress, shall become acting president if the second kind
of successor, the constitutional acting successor, dies, becomes permanently
disabled, or resigns while serving as acting president. 82
The constitutional successor-the vice-president-becomes the

actual president upon a vacancy in the Office of the President. The ascension
of the constitutional acting successors, the senate president or the house
speaker, is premised on the absence of the constitutional successor and is
characterized as merely in an acting capacity, given the constitutional time
frame for special elections. This was made clear in the deliberations of the
1986 Constitutional Commission, to wit:
[MR. RODRIGO]. Section 9 deals with permanent disability. So if

both the President and Vice-President die, become permanently
disabled or are removed from office, the Senate President becomes
permanent President[?]
MR. REGALADO. No, he is only in an acting capacity.
MR. RODRIGO. He is only Acting President until the end of the

term or until a President is elected?
80 CONST. art. VII, § 8, ¶ 1. "In case of death, permanent disability, removal from
office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve
the unexpired term."
81 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 1.
82
Art. VII, 8, ¶ 2. "The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President
in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve
until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject
to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President."
MR. REGALADO. Until a President shall have been elected under

the circumstances envisioned in Section 10.
MR. RODRIGO. So, the Senate President and the Speaker, in the
same way, do not lose their positions as Senate President and
Speaker and as Member of the Senate and House, respectively?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President, that is correct. 83
Thus, even if no special elections could be held in cases where the

vacancies in the Offices of the President and Vice-President transpire within
18 months from the next presidential election, the acting president continues
to perform in a mere acting capacity and does not become the actual president.
This draws a clear line among the different types of successors, especially
considering how the ascension of the statutory successor was phrased in the
Constitution. However, the same interpretation may also be called
problematic because of its potential to blur the principle of separation of
powers, as will be further discussed in the succeeding parts of this Note 84
Finally, the statutory successor's existence is premised on whether the

legislature will fulfill the Constitution's directive to extend the presidential line
of succession. Moreover, the statutory successor's ascension into the post of
acting president is dependent not merely on the absence of the constitutional
successor and constitutional acting successor, but also on the prior
assumption of a constitutional acting successor (i.e., senate president or house
speaker) as acting president and his subsequent death, resignation, removal,
or permanent incapacity. Essentially, the third kind of successor is a fallback
in the event that the constitutional acting successor suddenly dies, resigns, gets
removed, or becomes permanently incapacitated while serving as acting
president.
Having distinguished the three types of presidential successors, it

becomes clear that the rules on presidential succession, as currently worded,
do not cover all possible scenarios of vacancies. For instance, in the absence
of a statutory successor as a result of lack of legislation, who becomes acting
president in the simultaneous absence of the constitutional successor and the
constitutional acting successor? Furthermore, assuming that the statutory
successor is available, what happens if the second type of successor does not
get to assume the position of acting president either because the vacancies
occurred simultaneously, or because the second type of successor has not
been validly elected by either house of Congress? It is argued that these

84 See infra Part VI.A.
circumstances will produce a power vacuum that may result in a constitutional

crisis if not remedied through constitutional amendment and legislation.
III. DEFINING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
In advocating for the passage of the Senate Bill No. 982, its sponsor
argued that the passage of the bill would prevent what he calls a
"constitutional crisis." 85 To some extent, such a reason is tenable. However,
the term "constitutional crisis" must first be defined to understand the
propriety of its usage.
The words "constitutional crisis" have been thrown around a lot by

Philippine government officials, but such a term has not been clearly defined.
For instance, the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago gave warning of a
constitutional crisis should the Supreme Court intervene in the Senate
impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona. 86 This sentiment
was reiterated by the late House of Representatives Committee on Justice
Chairman Reynaldo Umali when news surfaced that then Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes Sereno was seeking a temporary restraining order on the House
impeachment proceedings against her from the Supreme Court. 87 From these
pronouncements, it would seem that the term "constitutional crisis" is
interpreted by some members of the legislative branch as the situation that
would follow upon a gross violation of the separation of powers provided for
by the Constitution.88
The Supreme Court justices, however, seem to have a different

interpretation. In his concurring and dissenting opinion in the case of Padilla
v. Congress,89 Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that the ruling of the
majority which interpreted Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution as
allowing the two houses of Congress to vote separately, instead of jointly, on
the issue of whether to extend the proclamation of martial law the whole of
85 Ruth Abbey Gita-Carlos, Palace sees wisdom of having 'designatedsurvivor', PHIL. NEWS
AGENCY, Sept. 2, 2020, at https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles /1114099.
86 Interview with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago (Feb. 8, 2012), available at
http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press -release/2012/0208_santiago2.asp.
87 Joyce Ilas, House panel chair warns of 'constitutional crisis' if Sereno lawers turn to high
court, CNN PHIL., Nov. 20, 2017, at https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/11/20/umali-
constitutional-crisis-sereno-supreme-court.html.
88 The principle of separation of powers has no express provision in the
Constitution, but the Court has held that it is provided by the actual division of the branches
in the Constitution. See Angara v. Electoral Comm'n, 63 Phil. 139, 156 (1936).
89 G.R. No. 231671, 832 SCRA 282, July 25, 2017.
Mindanao, could lead to a "constitutional crisis" in the event that the Senate
and the House reach contrary decisions and they get caught in a deadlock. 90
On the other hand, Justice Teodoro Padilla, in his dissent in Marcos v.
91
Manglapus, called the Court's refusal to grant the prayer of the family of the
late dictator Ferdinand Marcos' to return from exile and inter his body in the
Philippines as violative of the constitutional right to be buried in one's own
country. Justice Padilla then lamented that by ruling in this manner, the
majority had "passed [on] an opportunity to defuse a constitutional crisis." 92
In Francisco v. The House ofRepresentatives,93 the Court, through Justice Conchita
Carpio-Morales, held that no constitutional crisis could result from the
exercise of an independent branch of the government of the powers explicitly
granted to it by the Constitution.94 This came as a response to the allegations
that a refusal of the judiciary to exercise constraint over petitions questioning
the legality of the second impeachment complaint against then-Chief Justice
Hilario Davide Jr., which was filed just five months after the first, could lead
to a constitutional crisis. 95 In Neri v. Senate Commission on Accountabiity of Pubic
Officers and Investigations,96 then-Chief Justice Reynato Puno, in his dissenting
opinion, advised that "collisions in the exercise of constitutional powers
should be avoided in view of their destabilizing effects. Reasonable efforts at
negotiation and accommodation ought to be exerted, for when they succeed,
constitutional crises are avoided." 97 Meanwhile, Justice Mariano del Castillo,
in his dissenting opinion in Repub/ic v. Sereno,98 said that to allow the
interpretation of quo ivarranto proceedings to include impeachable officers,
while at the same time upholding the immunity of the president, "opens up a
possibility of a constitutional crisis." 99 For instance, if the person elected as
president is ineligible for office, Justice del Castillo argued that it would be
unclear if he or she could invoke his or her immunity from suit against a quo
ivarranto petition. On the other hand, Justice Antonio Carpio's dissent in the
same case considered the quo warranto proceeding against then-Chief Justice
Sereno as an encroachment of Congress' "exclusive mandate [...] to remove
impeachable officers from office." 100 This, Justice Carpio opined, "would
90 Id. at 375 (Leonen, J., dissenting.

91 G.R. No. 88211, 178 SCRA 760, Oct. 27, 1989.
92 Id. at 769 (Padilla, J., dissenting.
93 G.R. No. 160261, 415 SCRA 44, Nov. 10, 2003.
94 Id. at 104.
5 Id. at 104-05.
96 G.R. No. 180643, 547 SCRA 77, Sept. 4, 2008.
97 Id. at 246 (Puno, C.J., dissentng.
98 G.R. No. 237428, 863 SCRA 690, June 19, 2018.
99 Id. at 503 (Del Castillo, J., dissenting.
100 Id at 346-47 (Carpio, J., dissenting).
have created a constitutional crisis that could only weaken the public's faith in
the primacy of the Constitution." 101
From the foregoing, there appears to be three common causes of a

constitutional crisis. The first cause is when the separation of powers among
the three branches of the government-a fundamental principle of our
Constitution and republican form of government is grossly violated. When
one branch is allowed to transcend its jurisdiction, the constitutional design is
eroded. The second cause of a constitutional crisis is the emergence of a
situation for which the Constitution offers no remedy. Lastly, the third cause
is the deliberate pursuit of extra-constitutional means by state actors to
address a particular problem.
The aforementioned examples are correct insofar as they are

"possible causes" of constitutional crises, but they cannot be characterized as
constitutional crises per se. According to constitutionalists Sanford Levinson
and Jack Balkin, mere disagreements, that are a normal feature of politics, or
any constitution which provides for a mechanism of checks and balance, do
not amount to a constitutional crisis. 102 As long as the constitutional design
functions properly, even if state actors strongly disagree with and threaten
each other, there can be no constitutional crisis. In other words, as long as the
aforementioned possible causes are settled within the constitutional design,
then there is no constitutional crisis. 103
For Levinson and Balkin, there are three types of constitutional crises.
The first occurs when political leaders claim the right to suspend features of
the Constitution in order to preserve the overall social order and to meet the
exigencies of the moment. 104 The second type occurs when all relevant actors
comply with their widely accepted constitutional duties and roles, but.
following the accepted understanding of the Constitution, fail to resolve the
existing political crisis. 105 The third type occurs when the relevant actors all
proclaim their constitutional fidelity but so vehemently disagree on the proper
interpretation that they resort to threats or violence in order to prevail. 10 6
Keith Whittington echoes Levinson and Balkin's argument that

political crises are not necessarily constitutional ones. Instead, Whittington
101 Id at 347.
102 Sanford Levinson & Jack Balkin, ConstitutionalCrises, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 707, 714
(2009).
103 Id
104 Id at 721.
105 Id at 729.
106 Id at 738-39.
argues that "constitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of
failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions." 107 Whittington,
however, offers a different classification. He distinguishes crises into two:
"operational crises" and "crises of fidelity." 108 According to Whittington,
"operational crises arise when important disputes cannot be resolved within
the existing constitutional framework." 109 Thus, extraconstitutional steps are
needed to overcome such failure. Crises of constitutional fidelity, on the other
hand, "arise when important political actors threaten to become no longer
willing to abide by existing constitutional arrangements or systematically
contradict constitutional proscriptions."110
Having defined "constitutional crises," it would seem that it was

former Senator Defensor Santiago who had the closest idea to its proper
definition. Going back to the earlier discussion, given that neither the
legislature nor the judiciary had an army to enforce their will, Senator
Defensor Santiago opined that had the Supreme Court intervened with the
Senate's constitutional duty to act as an impeachment court, there would have
been an "intellectual stalemate" between the two branches. This stalemate,
the Senator warned, could have led to "people ris[ing] up in the streets." 111
But what happens when the presidency itself becomes the source of
the political crisis? Given the current constitutional framework regarding
presidential succession, there are three scenarios that would inevitably result
in a constitutional crisis in relation to the vacancy of the Office of the
President.
TABLE 3. Successional Scenarios

Ideal First Second Third
P. Died at the same Died at the same
V.P. time
S.P. Either S.P. or tune Died at the same Died at the same
H.S. Assumed time time
Acting Assumed Acting
H.S. President, but President but
both died died
Assumed Acting N/A because N/A because
Officer President there is no Available there is no
special law special law
107 Keith Whittington, Yet Another Constitutional Crisis?, 43 WM. & MARY L. REv.
2093, 2099 (2002).
108 Id. at 2100.
109 Id. at 2101.
"1 Id. at 2109-10.
1 Supra note 86.
Line Ends Line Ends

because an because an
No Problem Line Ends officer cannot officer cannot
Effect
assume because assume because
S.P. or H.S. did S.P. or H.S. did
not assume prior not assume prior
The first scenario would occur if the senate president or the house
speaker dies while serving as acting president, and no special law is passed by
Congress.
The second and third scenarios would occur if the Offices of the
President, Vice-President, Senate President, and House Speaker become
simultaneously vacant. The Constitution does not provide for a mechanism
of appointment of a successor or an alternative acting president. Regardless
of whether or not there is a special law, the effect is the same, which is the
end of the line of succession. This is because a statutory successor is only
authorized by the Constitution to replace the constitutional acting successor
who has already been serving as acting president. 112 Stated differently, the
successor installed by special law cannot assume the Office of Acting
President until and unless: (1) the senate president or house speaker had
previously assumed the post of acting president; 113 and (2) the senate
president or house speaker had died, became permanently disabled, or
resigned while serving as acting president. 114 A power vacuum in the executive
as a result of the second and third scenario, would undoubtedly result in a
constitutional crisis. This is precisely because the situation is not contemplated
by the existing constitutional framework, which in turn, would force state
actors to engage in extraconstitutional acts in order to attain legitimacy (the
first type of crisis as per Levinson and Balkin; operational crises as per
Whittington). On the other hand, relevant state actors may choose to do
nothing in faithful adherence to the Constitution, which would result in
political paralysis (the second type of crisis as per Levinson and Balkin).
Alternatively, should there be conflict among officials claiming to be the
logical successor, the struggle may cause the opposing parties to resort to
threats or violence (the third type of crisis as per Levinson and Balkin; crises
of constitutional fidelity by Whittington).
112 CONST. art. VII, § 8, ¶ 2.

113 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 1.
114 Art. VII, 8, ¶ 2.
A. First Scenario
With respect to the first event leading to a constitutional crisis, it is

clear from the second paragraph of Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution
that in the event that the president and the vice-president are incapacitated,
and the senate president and the house speaker also subsequently become
incapacitated, then the only way for there to be a successor to the presidency
is if a special law provides for one.
To illustrate, suppose a terrorist attack occurs during the SONA and

President "A," Vice-President "B," Senate President "C," are killed
simultaneously as a result thereof Suppose further that there is no special law
that extends the presidential line of succession. Pursuant to Section 8, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution, House Speaker "D" becomes the acting
president while a special election is prepared and conducted within a 71-day
constitutionally-mandated time frame. However, a few days later, Acting
President "D" succumbs to a heart attack. In this scenario, there will exist a
power vacuum, not because of a flaw in the constitutional design like the
scenarios that will subsequently be discussed, but because of the absence of
legislation designating statutory successors.
B. Second and Third Scenarios
The second and third scenarios that could lead to a constitutional

crisis occur when the Offices of the President, Vice-President, Senate
President, and House Speaker are simultaneously vacant. In this case, there
can be no president, acting or otherwise, because the Constitution does not
allow it.
On this matter, it is respectfully offered that the correct interpretation

of Article VII, Section 8 is that it is only the senate president or the house
speaker at the time ofthe vacancy who should become acting president. 115 Hence,
members of Congress cannot just subsequently elect a new senate president
or house speaker to remedy the situation. A contrary interpretation could yield
to a dangerous situation wherein the senate president or the speaker of the
house may be changed at any time before their assumption of office for
political reasons. This would be a blatant violation of the principle of
11s Art. VII, § 8, ¶ 1. "In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or
resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of
both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or
Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified."
separation of powers since a house of Congress effectively decides who gets

to be president.
Such interpretation would also render nugatory the provision which

says that the house speaker should be acting president in the absence of a
senate president. This is because the Senate might insist that they be allowed
to subsequently elect a senate president instead of allowing the house speaker
to assume the position of acting president. On the flip side, the House of
Representatives could also do the same towards the statutory successors, or
perhaps, argue that any one of the deputy speakers should become the acting
president.
The situation mentioned in the previous paragraph is what is called

"bumping" or supplantation, which cannot be done under the 1987
Constitution. It is one of the greatly-debated issues in the United States with
respect to their succession laws, and is a result of how the Presidential
Succession Act of 1947 was drafted. This will be discussed more extensively
in the succeeding parts of this Note.
1. Illustrative Cases of the Second and Third Scenario
To put the scenarios into a better perspective, suppose a terrorist

attack occurs during SONA and President "A," Vice-President "B," Senate
President "C," and House Speaker "D" perished simultaneously as a result
thereof. Even if there was a special law enacted extending the line of
succession, it is submitted that Art. VII, Section 8 does not allow another
person to become acting president other than the then-senate president or
house speaker. 116 The remaining members of the Senate cannot right there
and then, meet and "elect" a new senate president because the Constitution
provides that if the senate president is unable, then the duty to act as president
would be transferred to the house speaker, which in this hypothetical example,
would be Speaker "D." But because Speaker "D" also hypothetically perished
in the same situation, then no other person can claim to be the
constitutionally-legitimate acting president. The constitutional provision ends
with the speaker as the last officer who can assume the position of acting
president.
The power vacuum would then be inevitable. This is demonstrated

by the fact that even if there were a law extending the line of succession, the
statutory successors could not assume the position of acting president since
116 Art. VII, § 8, ¶ 1.

the Constitution limits their succession to instances when there is death,

permanent disability, or resignation of the acting president. Thus, regardless
of whether or not there is a law, so long as both the senate president and the
house speaker have failed to assume the role of "acting president," then there
can no longer be any statutory successor.
In relation to the third scenario, had the framers intended another

meaning, they could have used the phrase "in case of simultaneous death,
permanent disability, or resignation of the Senate President or the Speaker of
the House." Alternatively, the framers could have used a similar phrasing
found in a provision of R.A. No. 181, which provides for who shall serve as
acting president should there be no senate president or speaker of the
house. 117
The second and third scenarios could transpire even without a single
incident killing all the four officials mentioned in Article VII, Section 8 of the
Constitution. An example would be the period in between the assumption
of office by the newly elected president and vice-president, and the
subsequent election of the senate president and house speaker. To illustrate,
President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice-President Leni Robredo took their oath
as the president and vice-president of the Philippines on June 30, 2016.118 On
the other hand, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III and Representative Pantaleon
Alvarez, Jr. were elected as Senate President and Speaker of the House of
Representatives respectively on July 25, 2016-almost a month after their
election as members of Congress. 119 Thus, had the President and the Vice-
President died simultaneously, or even in separate occurrences between July
1 to 24, the same constitutional crisis would arise. To reiterate, because there
is no senate president and house speaker elected between those dates, there
can be no "acting president." Thus, no legislation providing for a replacement
of the acting president can ever be used to remedy the problem.
117 Rep. Act No. 181 (1947), § 1. "[T]he President of the Senate, or if there
be none,
or in the event of his removal, death, resignation, or of his inability to act as President, the
Speaker of the House of the Representatives, of if there be none[.]"
118 Duterte takes oath as 16th President of the Philippines, RAPPLER, June 30, 2016, at
https://www.rappler.com/nation/duterte-takes-oath-president; Leni Robredo takes oath as 14th
VP, ABS-CBN NEWS, June 30, 2016, at https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/06/30/16/leni-
robredo-takes-oath-as-14th-vp.
119 Camille Elemia, It'sfinal: Koko Pimentel is new Senate President, RAPPLER, July 25,
2016, at https://www.rappler.com/nation/koko-pimentel-senate-president-17th-congress;
Mara Cepeda, Pantaleon Alvarez is new House Speaker, RAPPLER, July 25, 2016, at
https://www.rappler.com/nation/pantaleon-alvarez-election-house-speaker-17th-congress.
The scenario of the president dying with no constitutional successors

has already been faced by the United States on more than one occasion during
the years when the Presidential Act of 1792 was still in effect. When Vice-
President Chester Arthur succeeded to the presidency after President James
Garfield died due to complications from a gunshot wound on September 19,
1881, Congress was not yet in session and had not yet elected both the senate
president pro tempore and the house speaker. A few years later, in 1885, Vice-
President Thomas Hendricks died only nine months after the beginning of
his term. 120 Similarly, his death transpired when Congress was not in session,
and the senate president pro tempore and house speaker had not yet been
elected.121
Both cases caused serious threats to American democracy. President

Arthur had to call for a special session of Congress two months earlier than
scheduled to allow Congress to elect a senate presidentpro tempore and house
speaker.122 On the other hand, President Grover Cleveland used the peculiar
timing to lobby for the enactment of a new presidential succession law-one
where the Cabinet secretaries would precede the legislative officers in the line
of succession. 123
2. The 1987 Constitution as Harbinger

of the ConstitutionalDilemma
To be clear, the second and third scenarios are only made possible by
the institutionalization of the U.S. Presidential Succession Act in the 1987
Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, the only successor is the vice-
president, but Congress could enact a law that would determine who will serve
as acting president in the event that the president and vice-president perish
simultaneously. 124 Consequently, under the 1935 Constitution, the second and
third scenarios leading to a constitutional crisis are not present-Congress
can merely enact laws to ensure that there will always be a sitting president.
However, the 1987 Constitution specifically included the senate

president and the house speaker in the constitutional line of succession;
although they may only succeed as acting president. 125 As previously
120 FEERICK, supra note 35, at 141.

121 Id., see Albert, supra note 74, at 509; Fortier & Ornstein, supra note 63, at 997;
Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supra note 49, at 2.
122 FEERICE-, supra note 35, at 130-31.
123 Albert, supra note 74, at 510-11.
125 CONST. art. VII, § 8, ¶ 1.
mentioned, however, by making the assumption of statutory successors

dependent on a prior assumption of said legislative officers, the framers also
inadvertently created a scenario where no person could constitutionally serve
as acting president.
IV. ARE THERE ALTERNATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES?
In the event that the president, vice-president, senate president, and

house speaker simultaneously die, become permanently incapacitated, or
resign, is there any constitutional provision that would allow a constitutional
successor to emerge? In this section, the possible answers to this question are
explored by reference to other provisions in the Constitution.
A. Vacancy in the Office of the President
The Constitution provides for five instances when the Office of the
President may be vacated. Thefirstis when the president-elect fails to qualify.
In this situation, the vice-president "shall act as President until the President-
Elect shall have qualified." 126 The second situation is when a president-elect has
not been chosen. In such a case, the vice-president-elect "shall act as President
until a President shall have been chosen and qualified." 127 The third situation
is when the president-elect dies or becomes permanently disabled at the
beginning of the term. In this situation, the vice-president-elect "shall become
the President." 128 The fourth situation is when no president and vice-president
was chosen or qualified. The fifth is when both shall have died or become
permanently disabled. In the fourth and thefifth situations, the president of the
senate or, in case of his inability, the house speaker, "shall act as President
until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified." 129
The fourth andfifth situations could happen either because both the
president-elect and vice-president-elect have died or failed to qualify, or
because no winner has been proclaimed. The underlying assumption in this
situation is that neither the president-elect nor vice-president-elect have
officially assumed their offices. Thus, this rule should not be mistaken to be
applicable in the situation contemplated in this Note, which is governed by a
different provision.130
126 Art. VII, 7, ¶ 2.

127 Art. VII, 7, ¶3.
128 Art. VII, 7, ¶ 4.
129 Art. VII, 7, ¶5.
130 See Art. VII, 8.
From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the Office of the President
can only be filled, either in a permanent or temporary capacity, by the
existence of the vice-president, the senate president, or the house speaker.
Thus, the provision on the filling of presidential vacancies per se would not
solve the second scenario that will lead to a constitutional crisis wherein all
top four elective posts become vacant. Such a scenario, as has been discussed,
will lead to a power vacuum.
B. Vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President
Article VII, Section 7 of the Constitution similarly applies to a

situation where no vice-president-elect qualifies to assume the Office of the
Vice-President. 131 However, with respect to a vacancy arising during the term,
the Constitution provides that the filling of a vacancy in the Office of the
Vice-President would be through the nomination by the president of a
member of the Senate or the House of Representatives, which shall be ratified
by the majority vote of both houses voting separately. 132 Article VII, Section
9 was applied after Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ascended to the
presidency after the overthrow of former President Joseph Estrada through
People Power II. The new President Macapagal-Arroyo subsequently
nominated then-Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President, whose
nomination was confirmed by both houses. 133
Thus, without a sitting president, there can be no "succession" in the

Office of the Vice-President.
C. Senate President and House Speaker
Pursuant to the constitutional provision empowering each house to

formulate its own rules, 13 4 the selection of the senate president and the house
speaker is governed by the Senate Rules and the House Rules, respectively,
131 See Art. VII, § 7.

132 Art. VII, § 9. "Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President
during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from
among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office
upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
voting separately."
133 BERNAS, supranote 13, at 858. See also Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148334,
420 SCRA 438, 445, Jan. 21, 2004. This case explained the events of the succession of Senator
Guingona as Vice-President and the subsequent special elections to fill the vacancy in the
Senate.
134 CONST. art. VI, § 16.
and not by the Constitution. Thus, vacancies in the Office of the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House are likewise filled in accordance with
their respective rules. The senate president and house speaker are elected and
remain in position through their ability to gain and maintain the support of a
majority of their colleagues. As such, they may be removed from their posts
at any time, as was the case in a recent power struggle between Representatives
Alan Peter Cayetano and Lord Allan Velasco.13 5
D. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, there is no way for anyone to become acting

president in the event of a power vacuum as contemplated by the event of
simultaneous deaths, incapacity, or resignation, given that there is no statute
extending the line of succession. The Constitution on its own simply does not
specifically provide for which person becomes acting president in such a
situation. 136 Thus, the first event leading to a constitutional crisis would still
exist and can only be remedied through an amendment of the Constitution.
V. EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS BILLS AS SOLUTION?
A. Senate Bill No. 982
Senate Bill No. 982 is undoubtedly inspired by the political drama

mentioned in this Note's introduction. It proposes that upon the death of the
acting president, the most senior senator in terms of length of service shall
become acting president, followed by the most senior representative in terms
of length of service, and finally by "[a] member of the Cabinet designated by
the President." 137 It is worth noting that the language of Senate Bill No. 982
seems to align with the author's thesis that a statutory successor cannot
succeed until and unless: (1) the senate president or house speaker has
previously assumed the post of acting president; and that (2) the senate
president or house speaker subsequently dies, resigns, gets removed, or
becomes permanently disabled while serving as acting president. 138 Thus, as
135 Erwin Colcol, The Cayetano-IVelasco speakershp row, GMA NEWS, Oct. 13, 2020, at
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news /news/nation/759571 /the-cayetano-velasco-

speakership-row/story.
136 CONST. art. VII, § 8, ¶ 2.
137 S. No. 982, 18th Cong., 1st Sess., § 2 (2019).
138 § 2. "In the event of permanent disability, death, removal from office or
resignation of the Acting President before the President or Vice-President shall have been
qualified, the following elected and appointed officers of the Republic of the Philippines and
who is not under any disability to discharge the powers and duties of the Office of the
also argued by the author, this bill, or any other similar bill for that matter,
will not avert a constitutional crisis in the event that the president, vice-
president, senate president, and the house speaker all simultaneously die,
resign, become permanently disabled, or get removed from office.
The bill also plans to adopt the practice of the U.S. Secret Service in
sequestering the cabinet member who is chosen by the President as a
designated survivor to a "secret and secure location." The said cabinet
member shall then become the acting president upon the death or permanent
disability of the constitutional, constitutional-acting, and the other statutory
successors.
Aside from the wisdom as to the choice of successors, other problems

are apparent in the bill. First, given that the sequestration is done
clandestinely, what are the means to assure that it was this particular Cabinet
member who was indeed "designated"? Will there be a public instrument?
What happens if two Cabinet members actually survive and both claim to be
the designated survivor? In the United States, this is not a problem since the
Presidential Act of 1947 provides for a hierarchy among Cabinet members. 13 9
Another concern is that the bill essentially wants to delegate to the

president the power to decide, without requiring him or her to inform
Congress, who among his Cabinet members would be placed in the
presidential line of succession for a particular event. This can be assailed as
unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative powers. The only
time Congress can delegate legislative powers to the president is when the
Constitution so provides.140 While the Constitution gave Congress the power
to determine who can be included in the line of succession, it did not give
Congress the power to delegate the same to the president. In this case, it is
the President who will "legislate" who among the Cabinet members would
become the constitutional successor for a particular event. That same
statutory successor can be changed for every event at the pleasure of the
president without Congress-or worse, the general public-ever finding out.
This leads to another problem. Given that the statutory successor

only becomes such for purposes of a particular event, what happens if the
simultaneous vacancies resulted from the successive deaths of the
constitutional successors outside a particular event, such as when the
President shall act as President in the following order: (1) the most senior Senator [...], (2) the
most senior Representative [...], (3) the member of the Cabinet designated by the President."
139 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(1).
140 Marc Donnelly & Assoc., Inc. v. Agregado, 95 Phil. 143, 147 (1954).
president, vice-president, senate president, and speaker of the house have

become afflicted with a virus and die simultaneously? Will the Cabinet
member who was the most recent designee assume the presidency? Until
when is such designation effective?
If the intention was to mimic the same mechanism used in the United
States, it would be more prudent for Congress to classify all cabinet members
as statutory successors and provide an order of precedence among them.
Doing this would avoid all the issues raised in the preceding paragraphs. It
must be noted that the reason why the U.S. practice of sequestering a
designated survivor is effective, despite the absence of its inclusion in the U.S.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947, is that all Cabinet members are already
included in the presidential line of succession. Hence, even if the president of
the United States does not expressly assign a "designated survivor" before an
event, the highest-ranking cabinet member who survives will automatically
succeed as acting president.
In any case, and, as already discussed, this will only solve one of the
scenarios that will lead to a constitutional crisis.
B. House Bill No. 4062
Another bill that seeks to address insufficiencies in the current

presidential line of succession is House Bill No. 4062,141 or the Presidential
Succession Act. This bill is a substantially similar, albeit poorly worded
version of Senate Bill No. 982. Both contemplate a situation wherein all the
"successors" simultaneously die. Under House Bill No. 4062, the sponsor
wanted the president to "designate" a successor, to be chosen among the
members of the Cabinet, in every "occasion or gathering," who will then be
given extraordinary protection during the event. However, the faulty phrasing
of the bill may lead to problematic implications. For example, the bill provides
the president unrestricted discretion as to who among the Cabinet members
shall become the designated survivor.1 42 Be that as it may, the issue has now
become moot because the bill's sponsor withdrew the same immediately after
143
receiving public ire.
141 H. No. 4062, 18th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019).

142 § 2.
143 QC lawmaker withdraws 2019 bIll grantingthe Presidentpower to choose a successor, CNN
PHIL., Aug. 30, 2020, at https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/8/30/precious-
hipolito-castelo-hb4062-withdraw.html.
C. Conclusion
Based on the previous discussion, it is clear that the legislative bills

filed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are inadequate to
address a situation wherein the Offices of the President, Vice-President,
Senate President, and House Speaker become simultaneously vacant. At best,
these bills can only supply a statutory successor who will take over in a
scenario where the constitutional acting successor-the senate president or
house speaker serving as acting president-subsequently dies, becomes
permanently disabled, or resigns. At this point, it must already be clear that
the only way to avert the possibility of constitutional crises is to amend the
present Constitution.
VI. LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In drafting the next governing constitutional provision or statute on

presidential succession, several legal and policy issues must first be
contemplated. These issues have been at the center of debates on presidential
succession in the United States for centuries. Given that the Philippine
presidential succession rules find similarity with those of the United States, 1 44
the former can learn from the latter's experiences and mistakes as the same
legal and policy considerations could find application in Philippine
jurisdiction.
A. Constitutional Legitimacy: Defining "Officer,"

Separation of Powers, and Qualifications
In the United States, there are still existing doubts as to the

constitutionality of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. In a nutshell,
some constitutional authorities believe that the term "officer" in the U.S.
Constitution excludes members of the legislative branch, house speaker, and
senate president pro tempore.
Ruth Silva, a notable scholar on presidential succession, 145 argues

against the constitutionality of the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947
on two grounds. First, she asserts that the speaker and the senate president
144 See supra Part I.

145 See John Feerick, PresidentialSuccession and Inabili4:Before and After the Tweny-Fifth
Amendment, 79 FORDHAM L. REv. 907, 913 (2010). Feerick cites Silva as a "leading scholar on
presidential succession."
pro tempore are not "officers" in the constitutional sense. 146 Based on how the
word "officer" was used in other provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and how
the provisions on house speaker and the senate president pro tempore were
phrased, Silva posits that the U.S. Constitution does not recognize the
presidentpro tempore as an officer of the Senate and recognizes only the house
speaker as an officer of the House, not of the United States. 147
Second, Silva believes that the person to whom the presidential

powers devolve must continue to hold the office upon which these powers
and duties are annexed. According to Silva's interpretation of the U.S.
Constitution, Congress has no power to declare which specific person shall
become acting president. 14 8 Instead, Congress can only annex presidential
powers and duties to an office, such as that of the house speaker or senate
president pro tempore. However, what the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of
1947 requires is that the official in the line of succession resign first from his
or her office before he or she can become acting president. 149 Therefore,
based on Silva's analysis, the U.S. Congress has exceeded the limitations
provided for by the U.S. Constitution 150 when it: (1) authorized legislative
officers-such as the house speaker and the senate president pro tempore-to
act as president; 151 and (2) required the succeeding officer-whether it be one
of the presiding officers of the legislative houses or a member of the
15 2
Cabinet-to resign his or her office prior to becoming acting president
given that the presidential powers are appended not to the person who
resigned, but to the office from which the person resigned.
Akhil and Vikram Amar, on the other hand, argue that statutory
successors in the United States could not be federal legislators because of the
Incompatibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution 153 which prohibits members
of the legislature from assuming other offices in government. 154 Thus, based
on this premise, the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is
unconstitutional because it allows the house speaker and the senate president
146 Silva, supra note 43, at 457.

147 Id at 463.
148 Id
149 3 U.S.C. § 19 (a)(1), (b), (d)(3).
151 3 U.S.C. 19 (a)-(c).
152 3 U.S.C. § 19 (a)(1), (b), (d)(3).
153 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 2. "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time
for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United
States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased
during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a
Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
154 Amar & Amar, supra note 74, at 118.
pro tempore to succeed to the presidency in the event of a vacancy.155 Using the
interpretative text of intratextualism and with resort to the drafting history of
the Constitution, the Amar brothers identified other instances where the term
"officer" was used in the Constitution in order to spot patterns of usage of
said term and to determine what the Founders meant in authorizing Congress
to enact a law extending the line of succession by designating an "officer." 156
The Amar brothers concluded that the intention of the Founders was for the
terms "officer" and "legislator" to be mutually exclusive. 157
Following the same logic as Silva and the Amar brothers, Paolo
Celeridad implied that R.A. No. 181, which included the senate president and
158
house speaker in the line of succession, is "of doubtful constitutionality"
-
drawing a comparison between the U.S. Constitution and the 1935
Constitution in the use of the word "officer" to refer to the constitutional
acting successor. 159 However, the exact argument cannot apply in the case of
the Philippines.
Article XVI of the 1935 Constitution, which was to take effect upon
the proclamation of the independence of the Philippines, expressly stated that
constitutional officers are those officials who were elected and were serving
under the Constitution. 160 Thus, "constitutional officers" are no different
from the "officers" as generally used in the laws on public officers and are, in
fact, a subset of it. In any case, in the 1987 Constitution, the provision now
states that Congress provides "who shall serve as President," 161 instead of
"what officer shall then act as President." 162
155 Id. at 113.

156 Albert, supra note 74, at 520, citing Amar & Amar, supra note 74.
157 Id at 520-21.
158 Celeridad, supra note 47, at 1091.
159 See CONST. (1935, amend.), art. VII, § 8. "In the event of the removal of the
President from office, or his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties
of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress shall by law
provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-
President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act
accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
160 CONST. art. XVII, § 1, ¶ 2. "The officials elected and serving under this
Constitution shall be constitutional officers of the free and independent government of the
Philippines and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directly under such
Government, and shall serve their full terms of office as prescribed in this Constitution."
161 Art. VII, § 8, ¶ 2.

Celeridad also pointed out that R.A. No. 181 was a blatant violation
of the principle of separation of powers. 163 This Note adopts the same stance,
since R.A. No. 181 was enacted during the 1935 Constitution, which had a
similar succession provision with that of the United States, as earlier
discussed.
The attack on separation powers in the U.S. presidential succession

laws can be traced back to a letter dated February 21, 1792 from James
Madison, one of the founding fathers and a former U.S. President, to then-
Governor of Virginia Edmund Pendleton. In the letter, Madison said that
should the acting president retain his function as a legislative officer, the
incompatible functions of the two branches will be "blended." 164 According
to Madison, the fact that the U.S. Succession Act of 1792 did not require the
legislative officer to relinquish his seat in the Senate or House of
Representatives before ascending to the post of acting president violated the
Incompatibility Clause. 165 On the other hand, Madison also pointed out that
since the U.S. Constitution annexed the role of acting president not to a
private citizen, but to the office itself, then requiring the senate president pro
tempore or house speaker to resign would mean that he or she would no longer
be eligible to serve as acting president. 166
The attacks on separation of powers by the scholars in the United

States are likewise structural and premised on the violation by the Presidential
Succession Act of 1947 of the U.S. Constitution-echoing the sentiments of
Madison. For instance, Silva argued that the U.S. Presidential Succession Act
of 1947 is an "evasion of the Constitution" because the Federal Convention
rejected the idea of a senate president, which was originally conceived as a
purely legislative officer, being the immediate successor to the presidency. 167
Meanwhile, the arguments of the Amar brothers echoed the assertion of
Madison which was premised on the Incompatibility Clause, 168 as well as

164 National Archives, From James Madison to Edmund Pendleton, 21 February
1792, FOUNDERS ONLINE, available at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/
01-14-02-0206, citing James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, in 14 THE PAPERS OF
JAMES MADISON 235-36 (Robert Ruthland et. al. eds, 1983).
165 FEERICK, supra note 35, at 61-62, citing Madison, supra note 164.
166 Id at 61. See Amar & Amar, supra note 74, at 120. "Madison and others argued
that Congress could annex presidential powers only ex officio-that is, to some fixed office,
not aperson."
168 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 2.

Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution 16 9 which prohibited the vice-

president from presiding over the Senate when exercising the power of the
president. 170
The issue regarding the principle of separation of powers is best

summarized by the work of Professor Richard Albert. In his article, he
conceded that while separation of powers is a "cornerstone of the American
constitutional edifice," the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is only
unconstitutional today because of the Incompatibility Clause, and thus, prior
to the incorporation of the said clause, "joint inter-branch service may well
have been constitutional." 17 1
Hence, R.A. No. 181 indeed violated the principles of separation of

powers, as the 1935 Constitution rejected a parliamentary model 172 and did
not expressly include the presiding officers of the legislative houses in the
presidential line of succession-unlike the present Constitution.
Another argument against the inclusion of legislative officers in the

presidential line of succession concerns the impeachment process. It is
Congress that possesses the power to impeach a president. 173 Hence, the
inclusion of legislative officers in the presidential line of succession introduces
a potential conflict of interest. To illustrate, consider a situation where there
is a vacancy in the vice-presidency. In this scenario, the legislative officers in
the line of succession, i.e. the senate president and the house speaker, may
have an interest in seeing the sitting president impeached. This is because such
an impeachment would leave a vacancy in the presidency, thus paving the way
for a legislative officer to become acting president. 174
But given that the present Constitution designates the senate

president and speaker of the house as successors to the presidency, then the
169 Art. I, § 3, c. 5. "The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President
pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of
President of the United States."
170 Amar & Amar, supranote 74, at 118-20.
171 Albert, supra note 74, at 508.

172 During the deliberations regarding Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, the
framers had to decide whether to adhere to the presidential system or to adopt a parliamentary
form of government by approving a motion to suppress a provision similar to the
incompatibility clause of the United States. The Convention decided to adhere to the
presidential system. See ARUEGO, supranote 34, at 230-31.
173 CONST. art. XI, § 3.
174 Amar & Amar, suranote 74, at 114. "If legislators are in line to fill a vacant Oval
Office, a pervasive conflict of interest will warp their judicial roles in presidential and vice-
presidential impeachment proceedings." See also Celeridad, supranote 47, at 1081-82.
objection based on the separation of powers has ceased to exist. Since the
Constitution itself provides that the presiding officers of the two houses of
Congress are in the line of presidential succession, 175 it will be paradoxical to
call it unconstitutional for violating the principle of separation of powers.
In relation to the preceding paragraphs, it must be noted that in our

jurisdiction, members of Congress are not the only officers affected by an
Incompatibility Clause. It would appear that in the present context, there is a
stronger argument for the constitutional validity of the inclusion of the senate
president and house speaker in the line of succession than that of the Cabinet
members. While Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly installs
the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress in the line of
succession, 176 Article VII, Section 13 prohibits Cabinet members from
occupying any other position in government. 177 Hence, it can be said that a
Cabinet member is barred from being included in the line of succession by
the Incompatibility Clause. The only way to remedy this problem is through
a constitutional amendment.
B. Democratic Principle and Party Continuity
In the United States, the issues of democratic principle and party

continuity vis-d-M's the issue on the presidential line of succession are
interrelated. While the principle of democracy was a huge factor in the passage
of the 1947 Succession Act, party continuity was the primary policy
consideration in the enactment of the Succession Act of 1886.
In the United States, it has been argued by some that the presidential
line of succession after the vice-president should begin with popularly elected
officials, rather than the appointed members of the Cabinet-the latter being
the case under the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. President Truman, in
his special message to Congress, said:
[B]y reason of the tragic death of the later President, it now lies
within my power to nominate the person who would be my
immediate successor in the event of my own death or inability to
act.
175 Celeridad, supra note 47, at 1096. "[T]he deliberations resulted in the
enshrinement of a constitutional quandary where the separation of executive and legislative
powers is blurred."
177 Art. VII, § 13.
I do not believe that in a democracy this power should rest

with the Chief Executive.
In so far as possible, the office of the President should be filled

by an elective officer. There is no officer in our system of
government, besides the President and Vice-President, who has
been elected by all the voters of the country.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is elected

in his own district, is also elected to be the presiding officer of the
House by a vote of all the Representatives of all the people in the
country. As a result, I believe that the Speaker is the official in the
Federal Government, whose selection next to that of the President
and Vice-President, can be most accurately said to stem from the
people themselves. 178
On the other hand, some argue that the speaker, while chosen by a
majority of his or her peers in the House, has only won the approval of the
voters in his congressional district. 179 Meanwhile, the post of the senate
presidentpro tempore which, like all other seats in the U.S. Senate is only elected
by the officeholder's home state, 180 is traditionally occupied by the senator of
the majority party with the longest tenure, rather than by the senator who is
most fit to become a successor to the president. 181
Those who advocate for a line of succession based on party continuity

argue that the person acting as president at a time of crisis should come from
the same political party as the previous incumbent. This would ensure the
continuity of the policies of the president chosen by the voters in the last
election. 182 This was the policy behind the adoption of the Presidential
Succession Act of 1886. Prior to its enactment, President Cleveland, whose
Vice-President died a few months after being elected into office, feared that
he would be replaced by someone from the opposing party had he also
suddenly died during his term. 183 Thus, President Cleveland used the then-
simultaneous absence of a vice-president, senate president pro tempore, and
178 FEERICK, supra note 35, at 205.

179 Fordham University School of Law Clinic on Presidential Succession, Ensunng
the
Stabiify of PresidentialElection in the Modern Era, 81 FORDHAM L. RiEv. 1, 45 (2012). See Amar
&
Amar, supra note 74, at 130. The authors argued that congressmen only represent parts of the
country, not the whole, and "do not reflect the national vision the [p]eople have historically
wanted their [p]residents to possess."
180 Clinic on Presidential Succession, supra note 179.
181 Id at 41.
182 Feerick, supra note 145, at 945-46.

house speaker as a reason to advocate for the removal of the said legislative
officers from the line of succession. In the legislative officers' place, the
members of the president's Cabinet were installed in the line of succession. 184
Proponents of the party continuity argument assert that succession by

the speaker or senate presidentpro tempore from a different party would be a
reversal of the people's mandate which is inherently undemocratic, 185 or in the
words of Amar, would "upend the results of a [p]residential election." 186
Furthermore, it is advanced that a change of presidential party could be more
disruptive than constructive, and could introduce "an additional element of
[...] instability [at] a time of crisis." 187 In the United States, the possibility of
this happening is not remote since it is not uncommon for the leaders in the
executive and legislative branches to belong to different parties. 188 In fact,
during the term of Republican President Donald Trump, the Senate President
Pro Tempore was Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, 189 while the House
Speaker was Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California. 190
In our jurisdiction, only the democratic principle argument deserves

consideration in the choice between congressional officers and Cabinet
members. The reason why the senate president precedes the house speaker is
because the senate president is also voted at-large 191 and is thus considered to
represent every Filipino. With respect to party continuity, the problem is
generally not applicable in the Philippines, given that the country has a weak
184 FEERICK, supranote 35, at 103. "The present conditions of the law relating to the
succession to the Presidency [...] is such as to require immediate amendment. This subject has
repeatedly been considered by Congress, but not result has been reached. The recent
lamentable death of the Vice President and vacancies at the same time in all other offices [...]
have caused public anxiety and a just demand that a recurrence of such a condition of affairs
should not be permitted." See also Albert, supra note 74, at 510.
185 Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supranote 49, at 17.
186 Id
187 Albert, supra note 74, at 525; Fortier & Ornstein, supranote 63, at 1005.
188 FEERICK, supra note 35, at 267. "For about eight of the thirty-seven years during
which the vice-presidency has been vacant, the person next in line was of the opposing party."
See also Albert, supra note 74, at 525-26, which listed the instances in recent history where the
president of the United States and house speaker belonged to different parties.
189 See Chuck Grassle, U.S. SENATE WEBSITE, at https://www.senate.gov/
artandhistory/history/common/briefing/PresidentProTempore.htm (last visited Feb. 2,
2021).
190 See Leadershp, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEBSITE, at
https://www.house.gov/leadership (last visited Feb. 2, 2021).
191 CONST. art. VI, § 2. "The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who
shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law."
political party system, characterized as being built around personality rather

than political programs or platforms. 192
C. Efficient Conduct of the Presidency
Another argument raised in debates in the United States is that the

functions of a house speaker or senate president pro tempore are purely
legislative and in no way translate into executive administration. 193
Furthermore, the wisdom of choosing the senate president pro tempore has
been questioned since the title is given on the basis of seniority-making the
titleholder more likely to be already very old. 194 For instance, the incumbent
Senate President Pro Tempore of the 117th U.S. Congress is Patrick Leahy, who
is currently 80 years old. 195 Leahy's predecessor, Charles Grassley, was 87
years old when his term concluded, 196 while Grassley's predecessor, Orrin
Hatch, was 84 years old when the 115th U.S. Congress ended. 197
Dean John Feerick, in one of his earlier writings, argues that from a
policy perspective, there is "little justification" for having the speaker and the
senate president pro tempore in the line of succession given that their
experiences are strictly legislative in nature. 198 Instead, he advocates for a
presidential line of succession consisting exclusively of Cabinet members. 199
Similarly, Celeridad argues that Cabinet members-starting from the
Executive Secretary who is the most knowledgeable of the executive functions
among all Cabinet members-should immediately follow the vice-president
in the order of succession. 200 A Cabinet member taking over as acting
president would result in an efficient turnover given that he or she regularly
attends Cabinet meetings and therefore, has intricate knowledge of the inner
workings and plans of the executive.
192 Nathan Gilbert Quimpo, The Philippines: Political Parties and Corruption, 2007 SE.
ASIAN AFF. 277, 277 (2007).

193 Albert, supranote 74, at 531. "From the standpoint of policy, there seems to be
little justification for having the Speaker and President pro tempore in the line of succession
[given that their] experience [...] is almost strictly legislative in nature."
194 Id
195 See Patrick Leahy, U.S. SENATE WEBSITE, at https://www.leahy.senate.gov/about
(last visited Feb. 16, 2021).
196 Supra note 189.
197 See Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer, Orrin Hatch, BRITANNICA, at

https://www.britannica.com /biography/Orrin-Hatch (last visited Feb. 10, 2021).
198 FEERCK, supra note 35, at 266.
199 Id.
Albert also adopts the same position saying that while "[t]he Speaker
of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore may be schooled in the
science of legislation[,] both are inexpert in the art of popular leadership." 20 1
Unlike Silva and Feerick, however, Albert proposes that former living
presidents should be included in the order of succession prior to the Cabinet
secretaries, in reverse chronological order, beginning with the former
presidents belonging to the same party. 20 2 Aside from addressing some of the
problems faced by having legislative officers or Cabinet officers as successors,
Albert opines that former presidents are the only ones "equipped with the
proven competence, domestic repute, and foreign stature," which would be
useful for a country undergoing a crisis. 20 3 If this were applied to the present
leaders in the United States, instead of Speaker Nancy Pelosi succeeding as
president in the simultaneous unavailability of Democratic President Joe
Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, the next successor would be former
President Barack Obama, who is likewise a Democrat.
The arguments raised by the proponents of a Cabinet-centered

succession are worth noting as in the United States, several presidents have
served as Secretary of State immediately prior to their election as president,
namely: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy
Adams, Martin Van Buren, and James Buchanan. 20 4 Several former Secretaries
of State have launched their own campaigns for president but lost-Hillary
Clinton being the most recent one. 205 However, if we were to look at the track
record of Philippine presidents, only two (excluding former vice-presidents
who may concurrently serve as department secretaries) out of all 16 presidents
served as a Cabinet member before becoming president. These were
Presidents Manuel Roxas, who served as Executive Secretary and Secretary of
Finance, and Ramon Magsaysay and Fidel Ramos, both of whom served as
Secretary of National Defense. Most of the other presidents, excluding Emilio
Aguinaldo (leader of the Philippine revolution), Corazon Aquino (private
citizen), and Rodrigo Duterte (mayor of Davao City), had either served as a
member of the Senate-a significant number of whom were elected as senate
president-or as vice-president immediately prior to becoming president. In
contrast to the United States, only 17 of the 45 men who have served as
president were previously members of the Senate.

202 Id. at 499.
203 Id
204 See Secretanes of State Who Became President, CNN POL., Aug. 12, 2016, at
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics /gallery/secretaries -of-s tate-who-became-
president /index.html.
205 See Hillay Clinton: T'i RunnIng for President', BBC NEWS, Apr. 12, 2015, at
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-32278971.
D. Bumping and Supplantation
The issue of bumping or supplantation in the United States started

with the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Under the said statute, the
officer acting as president will only continue to do so until the disability or
failure to qualify of any officer higher in the order of succession is removed. 206
If the disability is removed, the higher-ranking officer can "bump" the person
then acting as president. Hence, the vice-president can bump the house
speaker or senate president pro tempore acting as president. Meanwhile, a
Cabinet member can be bumped by the vice-president, house speaker, and
senate president pro tempore.20 7
To illustrate, suppose the president, vice-president, house speaker,

and senate president pro tempore all die. Under the statute, the most senior
Cabinet member becomes the acting president. However, once the House
elects a new speaker, the newly elected speaker would "bump" the Cabinet
secretary and assume the Office of Acting President. This supplantation leads
to further problems with respect to a temporary disability of the vice-
president, since whoever becomes acting president by virtue of the succession
208
law, no matter how brief, would have to resign from their previous posts.
Suppose that following the president's death and the disability of the vice-
president, the position "of acting president" is assumed by the house speaker.
In this scenario, the house speaker would have to resign from his or her post
before becoming acting president. However, once the vice-president has
recovered, the house speaker would be supplanted and would also be out of
a job. 209 Similarly, a senior Cabinet member, who is deemed resigned after
taking his oath as acting president, 210 would be out of a job once he is
subsequently bumped by either the vice-president, house speaker, or senate
president pro tempore. Court of International Trade Judge M. Miller Baker
argues that not all supplantations are detrimental. He classified supplantations
206 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(2). "An individual acting as President under this subsection shall
continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a
qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the dis ability of
an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to
qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service."
207 § 19 (d)(2).
208 § 19 (a), (b), (d)(2).
209 Amar & Amar, supranote 74, at 118-19.
210 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(3). "The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified
in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to constitute his resignation from
the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies to act as President."
into "good bumping" and "bad bumping." 211 Good bumping occurs when
the position of acting president was initially assumed by a more junior cabinet
member (i.e., Secretary of Agriculture) because the senior cabinet member
(i.e., Secretary of State) was not immediately available when the simultaneous
vacancies occurred. 212 In this case, Baker surmises that it would be in the
interest of the country to allow bumping. However, good bumping is not
permitted under the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947.213 On the other
hand, an example of "bad bumping" would be when the surviving members
of Congress would select a new house speaker to displace a Cabinet officer
who has already assumed the role of acting president, which is what the
current presidential succession statute provides. 214 According to Baker, the
provision in the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 which allows bad
bumping is "essentially a coup d'6tat" written into law. 215 Another situation
which can be considered as "bad bumping" is when a higher-ranked
successor, who initially chose not to assume the position, would suddenly later
assert his or her constitutional and statutory right to do so. 216 Thus, Baker
advocates for the replacement of the existing "bad bumping" provision in the
U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 with that of "good bumping." 217
To be clear, bumping and supplantation are possible in the U.S.

Constitution because the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 expressly allows
for "bumping." Under said statute, the acting president will continue to serve
in the same post until a "qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to
act." 218 In contrast, under the 1987 Constitution, both the constitutional
acting successor and the statutory acting successor shall only act as president
"until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and
qualified." 219 Of course, Congress can enact a law to allow certain officials to
bump or supplant each other. But this law can only cover the statutory
successors because the rules applicable to the constitutional acting successors
are determined by the Constitution. 220

212 Id. at 38-39.
213 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(2).
214 Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supra note 49, at 38. But see Silva, supra note
43 at 456, explaining that under the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947, "a [Senate]
president pro tempore upon whom the presidential powers and duties devolve will not be
displaced by the subsequent election of a new Speaker who is able to qualify."
216 Id
217 Id
218 3 U.S.C. § 19 (d)(2).
220 Art. VII, § 8.
E. Resignation, Special Election, and

Prescription Period
Under the U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947, whoever assumes

the position of acting president would have to resign from his current post
and would then serve the remainder of the presidential term. This is because
the statute does not provide for special elections. 221
The aforementioned scenario is not the case in the Philippines

because the Constitution does not require the resignation of either the senate
president or house speaker for them to succeed as acting president. This was
made clear during the constitutional deliberations. 222 Celeridad pointed out
that the framers of the Constitution were aware of the possibility of either a
senate president or house speaker clinging to his or her regular position while
simultaneously serving as the acting president; however, they decided to retain
this situation. 223 The framers considered that if they had required the senate
president or the house speaker to resign prior to assuming the position of
acting president, while at the same mandating that special elections be held
within 71 days from the vacancy, then the acting president would be out of a
job once the new president is elected through the special election.
However, the scenario does become problematic if the Offices of the

President and the Vice-President become simultaneously vacant within 18
months from the next presidential election because Article VII, Section 10 of
the Constitution prohibits the holding of a special election during said
period.224 Hence, the acting president would have to simultaneously occupy
two positions for an extended period of time. Allowing the leader of a house
of Congress to simultaneously serve as acting president for a lengthy duration
would not only inevitably result in the overlapping of functions which
would be a violation of the separation ofpowers-but it could also potentially
paralyze the operations of a chamber of Congress.
221 Silva, supra note 43, at 456. "The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 embodies
all of Truman's suggestions except the one for a special election of a President to complete
the term." See also Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supra note 49, at 12.
222 Celeridad, supra note 47, at 1094-96.
223 Id. "There seems to be no apparent explanation why the non-resignation of the
legislative presiding officers in order to act as the Chief Executive was not for the
Constitutional Commission an issue of conformity with a constitutional principle, more
specifically an issue of separation of powers. The issue of practicality was not even thoroughly
discussed in detail. Once again, the haste characteristic of reorganizing a country recently beset
by profound societal and historical changes may have had a hand in half-baking the
constitutional provision in question[.]"
A solution to this seeming impasse could perhaps come in the form

of a constitutional provision that is situational in nature. Should the vacancy
occur at a time where a special election is mandatory, then the acting president
should not resign from his post as senate president or house speaker.
However, if there are 18 months or less left in the presidential term which
would require the acting president to serve out the rest of the term, then he
or she should first be required to resign from his or her seat in Congress.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The purposes of this Note are: (1) to remind Congress of the long
ignored constitutional directive to enact a law that would extend the line of
succession; (2) to inform the members of Congress and the public of the need
for a constitutional amendment because of the possible constitutional crises
regardless of whether Congress enacts a special law; and, (3) to provide
guidance by identifying the legal and policy issues that must be considered in
enacting the law and amending the Constitution.
The following are some guidelines to give Congress more elbow room
to decide, without constitutional hindrances and deadlocks, and the risk of
constitutional crises, which officer to place in the presidential line of
succession. First, Article VII, Section 8 should be amended to exclude the
senate president and the house speaker from the line of succession. 225 Second,
Article VII, Section 10 should be modified so that the holding of a special
election is merely optional rather than mandatory. Should Congress decide to
retain the senate president and house speaker as the immediate successors,
they can do so by passing a special law reflecting the same. Likewise, should
Congress decide that the conduct of special elections is necessary, such may
be provided in the succession legislation. Of course, it must be noted that the
amended constitutional provision must expressly provide that Congress may
pass a law requiring the conduct of special elections in case of simultaneous
vacancies in the offices of the president and the vice-president. Otherwise, its
226
mere inclusion in a statute may be assailed as unconstitutional.
225 Art. VII, § 8, ¶ 2.

226 Under the present Constitution, there are two ways to be elected as president: (1)
through a general election as per Art. VII, § 4; and (2) a special election, as provided for under
Art. VII, § 10, which is triggered by the simultaneous vacancies in the offices of the President
and Vice-President.
To address possible constitutional issues regarding the separation of

powers, the amended constitutional provision should expressly state, without
necessarily determining the order, the classes of officials who can be included
by Congress in the extended line of succession. 227 It should also state whether
such designation is annexed to the person occupying the position or to the
office itself.
The constitutional provision should also expressly provide for an

order of succession among the Cabinet members. However, this provision
must be couched in flexible terms so as to contemplate a possible future
increase or decrease in the number of Cabinet positions. The Cabinet member
assuming the position would do so not merely in an acting capacity, but would
actually become president, unless there is a succession law passed by
Congress. If there was neither a succession law nor special elections to be
conducted, it would make no sense to make the presidential successor a
president only in an acting capacity. If a presidential succession law has indeed
been passed by Congress, then the provision with regard to the Cabinet
secretaries will become inoperative and the special law would prevail. In this
way, a constitutional crisis is averted in the event of congressional inaction, 228
and such inaction could be treated as an implied agreement on the part of
Congress to have Cabinet members as the Constitutional successors after the
vice-president. The Cabinet member will also not become president if the
incapacity that occurred in the Office of the Vice-President is only temporary.
Furthermore, as among Cabinet members, the ascension will immediately p ass
to the one next in line even if the disability of the higher-ranking Cabinet
member is merely temporary. This way, the possible "bumping" or
supplantation is avoided.
Lastly, to mitigate the likelihood of a power vacuum, the special law

must contemplate a scenario where, in addition to the death or incapacity of
the president, vice-president, senate president, and house speaker, a
substantial number of senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices
simultaneously die, resign, become permanently disabled, or were removed
from their positions. As for the other matters, such as whether the immediate
conduct of a special election is required or whether the acting officer should
227 See Art. VII, § 8.

228 Several provisions in the Constitution presently remain inoperative because of
congressional inaction. Aside from the mandate to extend the line of succession, Congress has
also refused to define political dynasty, and enact a general reapportionment law. Thus, leaving
the enactment of a succession law to Congress without a contingency in place would allow the
possibility of congressional inaction for another 30 years and would counteract the very reason
for the proposed amendment.
resign from his elected or appointed position, those must be left to the sound
discretion of Congress as the voice of the people.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding its several loopholes, the constitutional provisions

on the presidential line of succession remain untouched. According to
Professor Dante Gatmaytan, the skepticism towards changes in the
Constitution can be traced back to the time when the late dictator Ferdinand
Marcos tried to dodge term limits and extend his power indefinitely by
enacting the 1973 Constitution. 229 But even before the 1987 Constitution, it
has been evident that Philippine legislators are hesitant to enact changes to
the Constitution. In fact, the 1935 Constitution was only amended twice. The
first amendment was made to reflect the shift to a bicameral legislature and to
change the term limit of the president. The second was to give U.S. citizens
parity rights with Filipino citizens in the development of the country's natural
resources and in the operation of public utilities. 230 The revision resulting in
the promulgation of the 1973 Constitution, on the other hand, should not be
counted because, as Dean Antonio La Vina notes, they were only introduced
to perpetuate Marcos' one-man-rule. 231 Furthermore, the revisions were
rigged, orchestrated, and made possible by President Marcos' control of the
government bureaucracy and the judiciary. 232 In the same way, constitutional
change also occurs in the United States only when there is a tragedy or an
imminent disaster. 233
The country's global pandemic response has exposed the inability of

the government to effectively respond to a major health crisis. It has also
exposed the country's vulnerability as to the issue of continuity of
government, for it showed the mortality and fragility of even the top
23
government leaders. If the country can barely survive the pandemic alone, 4
229 Sofia Tomacruz, LOOK BACK: Past CharterChange Attempts and Why They Failed,
RAPPLER, Jan. 17, 2018, at https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/past-attempts-charter-
change-philippines-failed.
230 Evolution of the Phil4ppine Constitution, OFFICIAL GAZ., available at
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/constitution-day (last visited Feb. 2, 2021).
231 Antonio La Villa, Eagle Eyes: The Travesty of the 1973 Constitution, MANILA
STANDARD, Sept. 20, 2016, available at htps://manilastandard.net/opinioncolumns/eale-eyes-by-
tonty-la-vina/ 2 16640/the-travesty-of-the-1973-constitution.html.
232 Id See also Dante Gatmaytan-Magno, Changing Constitutions: Judicial Review and
Redemption in the Philippines,25 UCLA PAC. BASIN L. J. 1, 4-7 (2007).
234 See Luz Wendy Noble, PHL Recovegy to Lag Asia Pacfic, BUSINESSWORLD, Nov.
19, 2020, at https://www.bworldonline.com/phl-recovery-to-lag-asia-pacific/.
what more when a graver national emergency is compounded with power

struggles brought by the absence of government leaders?
In the United States, debates on the wisdom of presidential

succession laws have spanned for centuries, although the country has never
had a need to implement such laws. 235 The call for a review of the U.S.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 was at its peak in the aftermath of the
September 11 terrorist attack where hijacked planes partially destroyed the
Pentagon, headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense. 236 Evidence that
later surfaced suggested that the target of United Flight 93-the third hijacked
plane that failed to reach its intended target was the Capitol, the traditional
venue of the annual State of the Union Address. 237
The question now is: must we wait for a similarly grave tragedy to
occur in the Philippines before we start taking the issue of presidential
succession seriously? Should we only debate on the wisdom of presidential
succession once the worst-case scenario has already happened? The high
political and social investment demanded by a change to the provisions of the
Constitution is far outweighed by the benefits from the assurance of averting
possible constitutional crises and avoiding possible questions on an eventual
successor's legitimacy. While it is inevitable for someone to eventually ascend
to the role of presidency, 238 regardless if the Constitution is amended and a
statute extending the line of succession is enacted, there will always be
lingering questions regarding the successor's constitutionality and legitimacy.
- 000
-
235 Presidential Succession Act Hearing, supra note 49, at 4-5.

236 Fortier & Ornstein, supra note 63, at 993; Clinic on Presidential Succession, supra
note 179, at 100-113 (2013); Albert, supra note 74, at 533. See also M. Miller Baker, Fools,
Drunkards, & Presidential Succession, THE FEDERALIST SoC', Dec. 1, 2001, available at
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications /fools -drunkards-presidential-succession.
237 Howard Wasserman, Contnuity of Congress: A Play in Three Stages, 53 CATH. U. L.
REV. 949, 949-50 (2004).

238 See Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710, 353 SCRA 452, 549, Mar. 2, 2001
(Mendoza, J., concurring). "The operative fact which enabled Vice-President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo to assume the presidency was the fact that there was a crisis, nay a vacuum,
in the executive leadership which made the government rife for seizure by lawless elements.
The presidency was up for grabs, and it was imperative that the rule of succession in the
Constitution be enforced."

94 Phil LJ289

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

94 Phil LJ289

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

94 Phil LJ289

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Oct 12 07:21:42 2022

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Bluebook 21st ed.

ALWD 7th ed.

APA 7th ed.

Chicago 17th ed.

McGill Guide 9th ed.

AGLC 4th ed.

MLA 9th ed.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Juan Paolo M. Artiaga**

Under the Constitution, only the vice-president can fully succeed

* Cite asJuan Paolo Artiaga, PresidentialSuccession and its ConstitutionalDilemma:Averting

'Men may die, but the fabrics of our free

The American television show "Designated Survivor" followed the

At present, the COVID-19 pandemic poses a similarly grave threat.

4 DesignatedSurvivor: Pilot (ABC television broadcast, Sept. 21, 2016).

representatives have been infected. 10 The ongoing pandemic, coupled with

Finally, presidential succession is an important topic to discuss as the

Part I provides a brief overview of the presidential succession laws in

10 Sorsogon congresswoman Ditas Ramos testspositivefor coronavirus, RAPPLER, Sept. 6, 2020,

Part II distinguishes among the kinds of presidential successors: the

Part III introduces the concept of "constitutional crises" as

Part IV supports the earlier discussion by examining the 1987

Part VI discusses the legal and policy considerations that must be

Finally, in Part VII, the recommendations are provided on how to

I. HISTORY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION LAWS

TABLE 1. History of Succession Laws

E.O. No. 39020

The rule on Philippine presidential succession begins with the 1935

20 Exec. Order No. 390 (1941).

Constitution is a near-exact copy of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the U.S.

In the event of the removal of the President from office or of his

On the other hand, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, of the U.S.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his

Under the 1935 Constitution, the officer designated by statute to

28 U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 6.

B. Commonwealth Act No. 68

In compliance with the constitutional imperative, the National

National Assembly, a Department Secretary, in the order of rank established

C. Commonwealth Act No. 671

Commonwealth Act No. 671 (C.A. No. 671) was enacted on

Interestingly, E.O. No. 390 made the Philippine rules on presidential

D. Republic Act No. 181

E. The 1973 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution reflected the shift to a parliamentary form of

4s Rep. Act No. 181 (1947), § 2.

A later amendment to the 1973 Constitution abolished the Executive

F. The 1987 Constitution

The rule on presidential succession, as presently worded in the 1987

In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or

The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as

51 CONST. (1973), art. VII, § 7, ¶ 1.

According to Jose Aruego, the 1987 Constitution made the real

Nevertheless, the provision deserves closer inspection because there

The same treatment is applicable to the "president" who shall serve

Perhaps the biggest difference between Article VII, Section 8 of the

1. As Inspired by the U.S. Presidential

Enter Vice-President Harry Truman, who became a beneficiary of the