TITLE: SOLIVEN VS.

MAKASIAR

CITATION: 167 SCRA 393 DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1988 FACTS: Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied etitioners! motion for reconsideration and u he"d the reso"ution of the #ndersecretary of Justice sustainin$ the %ity &isca"!s findin$ of a rima facie case a$ainst etitioners. ' second motion for reconsideration fi"ed by etitioner (e"tran )as denied by the Secretary of Justice on ' ri" *, 1988. On a ea", the +resident, throu$h the ,-ecutive Secretary, affirmed the reso"ution of the Secretary of Justice on May ., 1988. /he motion for reconsideration )as denied by the ,-ecutive Secretary on May 10, 1988. 1ith these deve"o ments, etitioners! contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies avai"ab"e under the "a) has "ost factua" su ort. (e"tran is amon$ the etitioners in this case. 2e to$ether )ith others )as char$ed for "ibe" by the resident. %ory herse"f fi"ed a com "aint3 affidavit a$ainst him and others. Ma4asiar averred that %ory cannot fi"e a com "aint affidavit because this )ou"d defeat her immunity from suit. 2e $rounded his contention on the rinci "e that a resident cannot be sued. 2o)ever, if a resident )ou"d sue then the resident )ou"d a""o) herse"f to be "aced under the court5s 6urisdiction and converse"y she )ou"d be consentin$ to be sued bac4. '"so, considerin$ the functions of a resident, the resident may not be ab"e to a ear in court to be a )itness for herse"f thus she may be "iab"e for contem t. ISSUE:

1hether or not the +resident of the +hi"i ines, under the %onstitution, may initiate crimina" roceedin$s a$ainst the etitioners throu$h the fi"in$ of a com "aint3affidavit7

"ac4 of 6urisdiction. 2ence, the )rits of certiorari and rohibition rayed for cannot issue. &indin$ no $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to e-cess or "ac4 of 6urisdiction on the art of the ub"ic res ondents, the court dismissed the etitions.

THE COURTS RULING: /he rationa"e for the $rant to the +resident of the rivi"e$e of immunity from suit is to assure the e-ercise of +residentia" duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considerin$ that bein$ the %hief ,-ecutive of the 8overnment is a 6ob that, aside from requirin$ a"" of the office3ho"der5s time, a"so demands undivided attention. (ut this rivi"e$e of immunity from suit ertains to the +resident by virtue of the office and may be invo4ed on"y by the ho"der of the office9 not by any other erson in the +resident5s beha"f. /hus, an accused "i4e (e"tran et a", in a crimina" case in )hich the +resident is com "ainant cannot raise the residentia" rivi"e$e as a defense to revent the case from roceedin$ a$ainst such accused. Moreover, there is nothin$ in our "a)s that )ou"d revent the +resident from )aivin$ the rivi"e$e. /hus, if so minded the +resident may shed the rotection afforded by the rivi"e$e and submit to the court5s 6urisdiction. /he choice of )hether to e-ercise the rivi"e$e or to )aive it is so"e"y the +resident5s rero$ative. :t is a decision that cannot be assumed and im osed by any other erson. 's to etitioner (e"tran!s c"aim that to a""o) the "ibe" case to roceed )ou"d roduce a ;chi""in$ effect; on ress freedom, the %ourt finds no basis at this sta$e to ru"e on the oint. /he etitions fai" to estab"ish that ub"ic res ondents, throu$h their se arate acts, $rave"y abused their discretion as to amount to

/he ru"in$ )as met by a s ontaneous outburst of an$er that hit the streets of the metro o"is. /hereafter, the 'rmed &orces and the +=+ )ithdre) their su ort to the ,strada $overnment. Some %abinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs resi$ned from their osts. On January .0, .001, at about 1. noon, %hief Justice Cavide administered the oath to res ondent 'rroyo as +resident of the +hi"i ines. On the same day, etitioner issued a ress statement that he )as "eavin$ Ma"acanan$ +a"ace for the sa4e of eace and in order to be$in the hea"in$ rocess of the nation. :t a"so a eared that on the same day, he si$ned a "etter statin$ that he )as transmittin$ a dec"aration that he )as unab"e to e-ercise the o)ers and duties of his office and that by o eration of "a) and the %onstitution, the Vice3+resident sha"" be the 'ctin$ +resident. ' co y of the "etter )as sent to S ea4er &uentebe""a and Senate +resident +imente" on the same day. 'fter his fa"" from the o)er, the etitioner5s "e$a" rob"ems a eared in c"usters. Severa" cases revious"y fi"ed a$ainst him in the Office of the Ombudsman )ere set in motion. ISSUES: 1hether or not the resi$ned as +resident7 etitioner

TITLE:

ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 146710 1! DATE: MARCH ", "001 FACTS: :n the May 11, 1998 e"ections, etitioner Jose h ,strada )as e"ected +resident )hi"e res ondent 8"oria Maca a$a"3 'rroyo )as e"ected Vice3+resident. &rom the be$innin$ of his term, ho)ever, etitioner )as "a$ued by rob"ems that s"o)"y eroded his o u"arity. On October <, .000, :"ocos Sur 8overnor %havit Sin$son, a "on$time friend of the etitioner, accused the etitioner, his fami"y and friends of receivin$ mi""ions of esos from 6ueten$ "ords. /he e- ose5 immediate"y i$nited reactions of ra$e. On =ovember 13, .000, 2ouse S ea4er Vi""ar transmitted the 'rtic"es of :m eachment si$ned by 11> re resentatives or more than 1?3 of a"" the members of the 2ouse of @e resentatives to the Senate. On =ovember .0, .000, the Senate forma""y o ened the im eachment tria" of the etitioner. On January 10, .001, by a vote of 11310, the senator36ud$es ru"ed a$ainst the o enin$ of the second enve"o e )hich a""e$ed"y contained evidence sho)in$ that etitioner he"d +3.3 bi""ion in a secret ban4 account under the name AJose Ve"arde.B

1hether or not the etitioner is on"y tem orari"y unab"e to act as +resident7

THE COURTS RULING: /he etitioner denies he resi$ned as +resident or that he suffers from a ermanent disabi"ity. @esi$nation is a factua" question. :n order to have a va"id resi$nation, there must be an intent to

resi$n and the intent must be cou "ed by acts of re"inquishment. /he va"idity of a resi$nation is not $overned by any forma" requirement as to form. :t can be ora". :t can be )ritten. :t can be e- ress. :t can be im "ied. 's "on$ as the resi$nation is c"ear, it must be $iven "e$a" effect. :n the cases at bar, the facts sho) that etitioner did not )rite any forma" "etter of resi$nation before "eavin$ Ma"acanan$ +a"ace. %onsequent"y, )hether or not etitioner resi$ned has to be determined from his acts and omissions before, durin$ and after Jan. .0, .001 or by the tota"ity of rior, contem oraneous and osterior facts and circumstantia" evidence bearin$ a materia" re"evance on the issue. /he %ourt had an authoritative )indo) on the state of mind of the etitioner rovided by the diary of ,-ecutive Sec. 'n$ara seria"iDed in the +hi". Cai"y :nquirer. Curin$ the first sta$e of ne$otiation bet)een ,strada and the o osition, the to ic )as a"ready about a eacefu" and order"y transfer of o)er. /he resi$nation of the etitioner )as im "ied. Curin$ the second round of ne$otiation, the resi$nation of the etitioner )as a$ain treated as a $iven fact. /he on"y unsett"ed oints at that time )ere the measures to be underta4en by the arties durin$ and after the transition eriod. /he %ourt he"d that the resi$nation of the etitioner cannot be doubted. :t )as confirmed by his "eavin$ Ma"acanan$. :n the ress re"ease containin$ his fina" statement, E1F he ac4no)"ed$ed the oath3ta4in$ of the res ondent as +resident of the @e ub"ic, but )ith the reservation about its "e$a"ity9 E.F he em hasiDed he )as "eavin$ the +a"ace, the seat of the residency, for the sa4e of eace and in order to be$in the hea"in$ rocess of the nation. 2e did not say he )as "eavin$ the +a"ace due to any 4ind of inabi"ity and that he )as $oin$ to reassume the residency as soon as the

disabi"ity disa ears9 E3F he e- ressed his $ratitude to the eo "e for the o ortunity to serve them9 E<F he assured that he )i"" not shir4 from any future cha""en$e that may come ahead in the same service of the country9 and E>F he ca""ed on his su orters to 6oin him in the romotion of a constructive nationa" s irit of reconci"iation and so"idarity. /he %ourt a"so tac4"ed the contention of the etitioner that he is mere"y tem orari"y unab"e to erform the o)ers and duties of the residency, and hence is a +resident on "eave. /he inabi"ity c"aim is contained in the Jan. .0, .001 "etter of etitioner sent to Senate +res. +imente" and S ea4er &uentebe""a. Ces ite said "etter, the 2ouse of @e resentatives assed a reso"ution su ortin$ the assum tion into office by 'rroyo as +resident. /he Senate a"so assed a reso"ution confirmin$ the nomination of 8uin$ona as Vice3+resident. (oth houses of %on$ress have reco$niDed res ondent 'rroyo as the +resident. :m "icit"y c"ear in that reco$nition is the remise that the inabi"ity of etitioner ,strada is no "on$er tem orary. %on$ress has c"ear"y re6ected etitioner5s c"aim of inabi"ity. /he %ourt cannot ass u on etitioner5s c"aim of inabi"ity to dischar$e the o)ers and duties of the residency. /he question is o"itica" in nature and addressed so"e"y to %on$ress by constitutiona" fiat. :t is a o"itica" issue )hich cannot be decided by the %ourt )ithout trans$ressin$ the rinci "e of se aration of o)ers.

@ivera, as chief accountant and record custodian, res ective"y, of the ,conomic :nte""i$ence and :nvesti$ation (ureau E,::(F to roduce ;a"" documents re"atin$ to +ersona" Services &unds for the year 1988; and a"" evidence such as vouchers from enforcin$ his orders. +etitioner '"monte )as former"y %ommissioner of the ,::(, )hi"e +ereD is %hief of the ,::(!s (ud$et and &isca" Mana$ement Civision. /he sub oena duces tecum )as issued by the Ombudsman in connection )ith his investi$ation of an anonymous "etter a""e$in$ that funds re resentin$ savin$s from unfi""ed ositions in the ,::( had been i""e$a""y disbursed. /he "etter, ur ortin$ to have been )ritten by an em "oyee of the ,::( and a concerned citiDen, )as addressed to the Secretary of &inance, )ith co ies furnished severa" $overnment offices, inc"udin$ the Office of the Ombudsman. /he "etter reads in ertinent artsG that the EIIB has a syndicate headed by the Chief of Budget Division who is manipulating funds and also the brain of the so called "ghost agents" or the "Emergency Intelligence gents" !EI "# that when the agency had salary differential last $ct %&& all money for the whole plantilla were released and from that alone' (illions were saved and converted to ghost agents of EI # lmost all EIIB agents collects payroll from the big time smuggler syndicate monthly and bro)ers every wee) for them not to be apprehended. :n his comment on the "etter3com "aint, etitioner '"monte denied a"" the a""e$ations )ritten on the anonymous "etter. +etitioners moved to quash the sub oena and the sub oena duces tecum but )ere denied. Cisc"osure of the documents in question is resisted )ith the c"aim of rivi"e$e of an a$ency of the $overnment on the $round that ;4no)"ed$e of ,::(!s documents re"ative to its +ersona" Services &unds and its

"anti""a )i"" necessari"y "ead to 4no)"ed$e of its o erations, movements, tar$ets, strate$ies, and tactics and the )ho"e of its bein$; and this cou"d ;destroy the ,::(.; ISSUE: 1hether etitioners can be ordered to roduce documents re"atin$ to ersona" services and sa"ary vouchers of ,::( em "oyees on the "ea that such documents are c"assified )ithout vio"atin$ their equa" rotection of "a)s7

THE COURTS RULING: 't common "a) a $overnmenta" rivi"e$e a$ainst disc"osure is reco$niDed )ith res ect to state secrets bearin$ on mi"itary, di "omatic and simi"ar matters and in addition, rivi"e$e to )ithho"d the identity of ersons )ho furnish information of vio"ation of "a)s. :n the case at bar, there is no c"aim that mi"itary or di "omatic secrets )i"" be disc"osed by the roduction of records ertainin$ to the ersonne" of the ,::(. :ndeed, ,::(!s function is the $atherin$ and eva"uation of inte""i$ence re orts and information re$ardin$ ;i""e$a" activities affectin$ the nationa" economy, such as, but not "imited to, economic sabota$e, smu$$"in$, ta- evasion, do""ar sa"tin$.; %onsequent"y, )hi"e in cases )hich invo"ve state secrets it may be sufficient to determine from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonab"e dan$er that com u"sion of the evidence )i"" e- ose mi"itary matters )ithout com e""in$ roduction9 no simi"ar e-cuse can be made for a rivi"e$e restin$ on other considerations. /he Ombudsman is investi$atin$ a com "aint that severa" items in the ,::( )ere fi""ed by fictitious ersons and that the a""otments for these items in 1988

TITLE:

ALMONTE VS. VASQUEZ

CITATION: G.R. NO. 9!367 DATE: MA# "3, 199! FACTS: @es ondent, Ombudsman, requires etitioners =erio @o$ado and ,"isa

)ere used for i""e$a" ur oses. /he "anti""a and other ersonne" records are re"evant to his investi$ation as the desi$nated A rotectors of the eo "eB of the %onstitution. =or is there vio"ation of etitioners! ri$ht to the equa" rotection of the "a)s. +etitioners com "ain that ;in a"" forum and tribuna"s. /he a$$rieved arties can on"y ha"e res ondents via their verified com "aints or s)orn statements )ith their identities fu""y disc"osed,; )hi"e in roceedin$s before the Office of the Ombudsman anonymous "etters suffice to start an investi$ation. :n the first "ace, there can be no ob6ection to this rocedure because it is rovided in the %onstitution itse"f. :n the second "ace, it is a arent that in ermittin$ the fi"in$ of com "aints ;in any form and in a manner,; the framers of the %onstitution too4 into account the )e""34no)n reticence of the eo "e )hich 4ee them from com "ainin$ a$ainst officia" )ron$doin$s. 's this %ourt had occasion to oint out, the Office of the Ombudsman is different from the other investi$atory and rosecutory a$encies of the $overnment because those sub6ect to its 6urisdiction are ub"ic officia"s )ho, throu$h officia" ressure and inf"uence, can quash, de"ay or dismiss investi$ations he"d a$ainst them. On the other hand com "ainants are more often than not oor and sim "e fo"4 )ho cannot afford to hire "a)yers. &ina""y, it is contended that the issuance of the sub oena duces tecum )ou"d vio"ate etitioners! ri$ht a$ainst se"f3 incrimination. :t is enou$h to state that the documents required to be roduced in this case are ub"ic records and those to )hom the sub oena duces tecum is directed are $overnment officia"s in )hose ossession or custody the documents are. Moreover, if, as etitioners c"aim the disbursement by the ,:: of funds for ersona" service has a"ready been c"eared by the %O', there

is no reason )hy they shou"d ob6ect to the e-amination of the documents by res ondent Ombudsman.

investi$ations and to direct the fi"in$ of crimina" cases )ith the Sandi$anbayan, e-ce t u on orders of the Ombudsman. Subsequent"y annu""in$ the information fi"ed by the A/anodbayanB. ' ne) information, du"y a roved by the Ombudsman, )as fi"ed in the Sandi$anbayan, a""e$in$ that the Coroma", a ub"ic officer, bein$ then a %ommissioner of the +residentia" %ommission on 8ood 8overnment, did then and there )i""fu""y and un"a)fu""y, artici ate in a business throu$h the Coroma" :nternationa" /radin$ %or oration, a fami"y cor oration of )hich he is the +resident, and )hich com any artici ated in the biddin$s conducted by the Ce artment of ,ducation, %u"ture and S orts and the =ationa" Man o)er J Iouth %ounci", )hich act or artici ation is rohibited by "a) and the constitution. /he etitioner fi"ed a motion to quash the information on the $round that it )as inva"id since there had been no re"iminary investi$ation for the ne) information that )as fi"ed a$ainst him. /he motion )as denied by Sandi$anbayan c"aimin$ that another re"iminary investi$ation is unnecessary because both o"d and ne) information invo"ve the same sub6ect matter. ISSUES: 1hether or not the act Coroma" )ou"d constitute vio"ation of the %onstitution7 of a

THE COURTS RULING: /he resence of a si$ned document bearin$ the si$nature of Coroma" as art of the a "ication to bid sho)s that he can ri$htfu""y be char$ed )ith havin$ artici ated in a business )hich act is abso"ute"y rohibited by Section 13 of 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution; because ;the C:/% remained a fami"y cor oration in )hich Coroma" has at "east an indirect interest.; S%&'()* 13, A+'(&,% VII of the 198* %onstitution rovides that ;the +resident, Vice3+resident, the members of the %abinet and their de uties or assistants sha"" not... durin$ EtheirF tenure, direct"y or indirect"y artici ate in any business. /he ri$ht of the accused to a re"iminary investi$ation is ;a substantia" one.; :ts denia" over his o osition is a ; re6udicia" error, in that it sub6ects the accused to the "oss of "ife, "iberty, or ro erty )ithout due rocess of "a); rovided by the %onstitution. Since the first information )as annu""ed, the re"iminary investi$ation conducted at that time sha"" a"so be considered as void. Cue to that fact, a ne) re"iminary investi$ation must be conducted. /he absence of re"iminary investi$ation does not affect the court!s 6urisdiction over the case. =or do they im air the va"idity of the information or other)ise render it defective9 but, if there )ere no re"iminary investi$ations and the defendants, before enterin$ their "ea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court, instead of dismissin$ the information shou"d conduct such investi$ation, order the fisca" to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that the re"iminary investi$ation may be conducted. /he etition for certiorari and rohibition )as $ranted. /he Sandi$anbayan sha""

TITLE: DOROMAL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN CITATION: G.R. NO. 8!468 DATE: SE$TEMBER 7, 1989 FACTS: +ettioner, Huintin S. Coroma", a former %ommissioner of the +residentia" %ommission on 8ood 8overnment E+%88F, for vio"ation of the 'nti38raft and %orru t +ractices 'ct E@' 3019F, Sec. 3EhF, in connection )ith his shareho"din$s and osition as resident and director of the Coroma" :nternationa" /radin$ %or oration EC:/%F )hich submitted bids to su "y +01 mi""ion )orth of e"ectronic, e"ectrica", automotive, mechanica" and air3conditionin$ equi ment to the Ce artment of ,ducation, %u"ture and S orts Eor C,%SF and the =ationa" Man o)er and Iouth %ounci" Eor =MI%F. :nformation )as then fi"ed by the A/anodbayanB a$ainst Coroma" for the said vio"ation and a re"iminary investi$ation )as conducted. /he etitioner then fi"ed a etition for certiorari and rohibition questionin$ the 6urisdiction of the A/anodbayanB to fi"e the information )ithout the a rova" of the Ombudsman. /he Su reme %ourt he"d that the incumbent /anodbayan Eca""ed S ecia" +rosecutor under the 198* %onstitution and )ho is su osed to retain o)ers and duties =O/ 8:V,= to the OmbudsmanF is c"ear"y )ithout authority to conduct re"iminary

1hether or not re"iminary investi$ation is necessary even if both informations invo"ve the same sub6ect matter7 1hether or not the information sha"" be effected as inva"id due to the absence of re"iminary investi$ation7

immediate"y remand %rimina" %ase =o. 1.893 to the Office of the Ombudsman for re"iminary investi$ation and sha"" ho"d in abeyance the roceedin$s before it endin$ the resu"t of such investi$ation. TITLE: CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CITATION: 194 SCRA 317 G.R. NO. 83896 DATE: FEBRUAR# "", 1991 FACTS: /he etitioners, :$nacio +. Kacsina, Kuis @. Mauricio, 'ntonio @. Huintos and Juan /. Cavid for etitioners in 83890 and Juan /. Cavid for etitioners in 8381>. (oth etitions )ere conso"idated and are bein$ reso"ved 6oint"y as both see4 a dec"aration of unconstitutiona"ity of ,-ecutive Order =o. .8< issued by +resident %oraDon %. 'quino. ,-ecutive Order =o. .8<, accordin$ to the etitioners a""o)s members of the cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to ho"d other than $overnment offices or ositions in addition to their rimary ositions. /he ertinent rovisions of ,O .8< are as fo""o)sG S%&'()* 1G ' cabinet member, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other a ointive officia"s of the e-ecutive de artment may in addition to his rimary osition, ho"d not more than t)o ositions in the $overnment and $overnment cor orations and receive corres ondin$ com ensation thereof. S%&'()* ": :f they ho"d more than )hat is required in section 1, they must re"inquish the e-cess osition in favor of the subordinate officia" )ho is ne-t in ran4, but in no case sha"" any officer ho"d not more than t)o ositions other than his rimary osition.

S%&'()* 3: 't "east 1?3 of the members of the boards of such cor oration shou"d either be a secretary, undersecretary or assistant secretary. /he etitioners are cha""en$in$ ,O .8<5s constitutiona"ity because it adds e-ce tions to Section 13 of 'rtic"e V:: of the constitution. 'ccordin$ to the etitioners, the on"y e-ce tions a$ainst ho"din$ any other office or em "oyment in $overnment are those rovided in the constitution name"yG 1. /he Vice +resident may be a ointed as the %abinet Member under Sec. 3 E.F of 'rtic"e V::. .. /he secretary of 6ustice is an e-3officio of the Judicia" and (ar %ounci" by virtue of Sec. 8 of 'rtic"e V:::. ISSUES: 1hether or not ,-ecutive Order =o. .8< is unconstitutiona"7 1hether or not the rohibition in Section 13, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution insofar as %abinet members, their de uties or assistants are concerned admit of the broad e-ce tions made for a ointive officia"s in $enera" under Section *, ar. E.F, 'rtic"e :3L(7 1hether or not the rohibition a "ies to ositions he"d in eofficio ca acity7 1hether or not the res ondents are ob"i$ed to reimburse the erquisites they have received from the offices they have he"d ursuant to ,O .8<7

Sec. 13. /he +resident, Vice3+resident, the Members of the %abinet, and their de uties or assistants sha"" not, un"ess other)ise rovided in this %onstitution, ho"d any other office or em "oyment durin$ their tenure. /hey sha"" not, durin$ said tenure, direct"y or indirect"y ractice any other rofession, artici ate in any business, or be financia""y interested in any contract )ith, or in any franchise, or s ecia" rivi"e$e $ranted by the 8overnment or any subdivision, a$ency, or instrumenta"ity thereof, inc"udin$ $overnment3o)ned or contro""ed cor orations or their subsidiaries. /hey sha"" strict"y avoid conf"ict of interest in the conduct of their office. /he 198* %onstitution see4s to rohibit the +resident, Vice3+resident, members of the %abinet, their de uties or assistants from ho"din$ durin$ their tenure mu"ti "e offices or em "oyment in the $overnment, e-ce t in those cases s ecified in the %onstitution itse"f and as above c"arified )ith res ect to osts he"d )ithout additiona" com ensation in an e-3officio ca acity as rovided by "a) and as required by the rimary functions of their office, the citation of %abinet members Ethen ca""ed MinistersF as e-am "es durin$ the debate and de"iberation on the $enera" ru"e "aid do)n for a"" a ointive officia"s shou"d be considered as mere ersona" o inions )hich cannot override the constitution5s manifest intent and the eo "e5s understandin$ thereof. :n the "i$ht of the construction $iven to Sec 13, 'rt * in re"ation to Sec *, ar. E.F, 'rt :L3( of the 198* %onstitution, ,O .8< is unconstitutiona". Ostensib"y restrictin$ the number of ositions that %abinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries may ho"d in addition to their rimary osition to not more than . ositions in the $overnment and $overnment cor orations, ,O .8< actua""y a""o)s them to ho"d mu"ti "e offices or em "oyment in direct

contravention of the e- ress mandate of Sec 13, 'rt * of the 198* %onstitution rohibitin$ them from doin$ so, un"ess other)ise rovided in the 198* %onstitution itse"f. '"thou$h Section *, 'rtic"e :3L( a"ready contains a b"an4et rohibition a$ainst the ho"din$ of mu"ti "e offices or em "oyment in the $overnment subsumin$ both e"ective and a ointive ub"ic officia"s, the %onstitutiona" %ommission shou"d see it fit to formu"ate another rovision, Sec. 13, 'rtic"e V::, s ecifica""y rohibitin$ the +resident, Vice3+resident, members of the %abinet, their de uties and assistants from ho"din$ any other office or em "oyment durin$ their tenure, un"ess other)ise rovided in the %onstitution itse"f. 1hi"e a"" other a ointive officia"s in the civi" service are a""o)ed to ho"d other office or em "oyment in the $overnment durin$ their tenure )hen such is a""o)ed by "a) or by the rimary functions of their ositions, members of the %abinet, their de uties and assistants may do so on"y )hen e- ress"y authoriDed by the %onstitution itse"f. :n other )ords, Section *, 'rtic"e :3L( is meant to "ay do)n the $enera" ru"e a "icab"e to a"" e"ective and a ointive ub"ic officia"s and em "oyees, )hi"e Section 13, 'rtic"e V:: is meant to be the e-ce tion a "icab"e on"y to the +resident, the Vice3 +resident, Members of the %abinet, their de uties and assistants. /he hrase Aun"ess other)ise rovided in this %onstitutionB must be $iven a "itera" inter retation to refer on"y to those articu"ar instances cited in the %onstitution itse"f, to )itG the Vice3 +resident bein$ a ointed as a member of the %abinet under Section 3, ar. E.F, 'rtic"e V::9 or actin$ as +resident in those instances rovided under Section *, ars. E.F and E3F, 'rtic"e V::9 and, the Secretary of Justice bein$ e-3officio member of the Judicia" and (ar %ounci" by virtue of Section 8 E1F, 'rtic"e V:::.

THE COURTS RULING: S%&'()* 13, A+'(&,% VII rovidesG

/he rohibition a$ainst ho"din$ dua" or mu"ti "e offices or em "oyment under Section 13, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution must not, ho)ever, be construed as a "yin$ to osts occu ied by the ,-ecutive officia"s s ecified therein )ithout additiona" com ensation in an e-3officio ca acity as rovided by "a) and as required by the rimary functions of said officia"s5 office. /he reason is that these osts do no com rise Aany other officeB )ithin the contem "ation of the constitutiona" rohibition but are ro er"y an im osition of additiona" duties and functions on said officia"s. /he term e-3 officio means Afrom office9 by virtue of office.B ,-3officio "i4e)ise denotes an Aact done in an officia" character, or as a consequence of office, and )ithout any other a ointment or authority than that conferred by the office.B /he additiona" duties must not on"y be c"ose"y re"ated to, but must be required by the officia"5s rimary functions. :f the functions required to be erformed are mere"y incidenta", remote"y re"ated, inconsistent, incom atib"e, or other)ise a"ien to the rimary function of a cabinet officia", such additiona" functions )ou"d fa"" under the urvie) of Aany other officeB rohibited by the %onstitution. Curin$ their tenure in the questioned ositions, res ondents may be considered de facto officers and as such entit"ed to emo"uments for actua" services rendered. :t has been he"d that Ain cases )here there is no de 6ure officer, a de facto officer, )ho, in $ood faith has had ossession of the office and has dischar$ed the duties ertainin$ thereto, is "e$a""y entit"ed to the emo"uments of the office, and may in an a ro riate action recover the sa"ary, fees and other com ensations attached to the office. 'ny er diem, a""o)ances or other emo"uments received by the res ondents by virtue of actua" services rendered in the questioned ositions may therefore be retained by them.

Overa"", ,-ecutive Order =o. .8< is unconstitutiona" as it actua""y a""o)s a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other a ointive officia"s of the ,-ecutive Ce artment to ho"d mu"ti "e offices or em "oyment in direct contravention of the e- ress mandate of Section 13, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution rohibitin$ them from doin$ so, un"ess other)ise rovided in the 198* %onstitution itse"f.

etitioner. On January 10, .001, by a vote of 11310, the senator36ud$es ru"ed a$ainst the o enin$ of the second enve"o e )hich a""e$ed"y contained evidence sho)in$ that etitioner he"d +3.3 bi""ion in a secret ban4 account under the name AJose Ve"arde.B /he ru"in$ )as met by a s ontaneous outburst of an$er that hit the streets of the metro o"is. /hereafter, the 'rmed &orces and the +=+ )ithdre) their su ort to the ,strada $overnment. Some %abinet secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and bureau chiefs resi$ned from their osts. On January .0, .001, at about 1. noon, %hief Justice Cavide administered the oath to res ondent 'rroyo as +resident of the +hi"i ines. On the same day, etitioner issued a ress statement that he )as "eavin$ Ma"acanan$ +a"ace for the sa4e of eace and in order to be$in the hea"in$ rocess of the nation. :t a"so a eared that on the same day, he si$ned a "etter statin$ that he )as transmittin$ a dec"aration that he )as unab"e to e-ercise the o)ers and duties of his office and that by o eration of "a) and the %onstitution, the Vice3+resident sha"" be the 'ctin$ +resident. ' co y of the "etter )as sent to S ea4er &uentebe""a and Senate +resident +imente" on the same day. 'fter his fa"" from the o)er, the etitioner5s "e$a" rob"ems a eared in c"usters. Severa" cases revious"y fi"ed a$ainst him in the Office of the Ombudsman )ere set in motion. +etitioner sou$ht to en6oin the res ondent Ombudsman from conductin$ any further roceedin$s in any crimina" com "aint that may be fi"ed in his office, unti" after the term of etitioner as +resident is over and on"y if "e$a""y )arranted. ,ra a"so fi"ed a Huo 1arranto case, rayin$ for 6ud$ment Aconfirmin$ etitioner to be the "a)fu" and incumbent +resident of the @e ub"ic of the +hi"i ines tem orari"y unab"e to

dischar$e the duties of his office, and dec"arin$ res ondent to have ta4en her oath as and to be ho"din$ the Office of the +resident, on"y in an actin$ ca acity ursuant to the rovisions of the %onstitution.B ISSUE: 1hether or not the etitioner :s on"y tem orari"y unab"e to 'ct as +resident7

THE COURTS RULING: /he etitioner is ermanent"y unab"e to act as +resident. S%&'()* 11 )- A+'(&,% VIIG *Congress has the ultimate authority under the Constitution to determine whether the +resident is incapable of performing his functions., (oth houses of %on$ress have reco$niDed res ondent 'rroyo as the +resident. /he 2ouse of @e resentative assed on January .<, .001 H)./% R%/),.'()* N). ,7! )hich states *-esolution E.pressing /he Support $f /he 0ouse $f -epresentatives /o /he ssumption Into $ffice By Vice +resident 1loria (acapagal2 rroyo s +resident $fthe -epublic $f /he +hilippines' E.tending Its Congratulations nd E.pressing Its Support 3or 0er dministration s +artner In /he ttainment $f /he 4ation5s 1oals 6nder /he Constitution., /he Senate a"so assed S%*0'% R%/),.'()* N). 8" )hich states *-esolution Confirming +resident 1loria (acapagal2 rroyo5s 4omination $f Sen. /eofisto /. 1uingona' 7r. s Vice +resident $f /he -epublic $f /he +hilippines, :m "icit"y c"ear in that reco$nition is the remise that the inabi"ity of etitioner ,strada is no "on$er tem orary. %on$ress has c"ear"y re6ected etitioner5s c"aim of inabi"ity. ,ven if

TITLE:

ESTRADA VS. ARROYO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 146738 DATE: MARCH ", "001 FACTS: +etitioner Jose h ,strada )as e"ected +resident in the May 1998 e"ections )hi"e res ondent 8"oria Maca a$a"3'rroyo )as e"ected Vice3+resident. &rom the be$innin$ of his term, ho)ever, etitioner )as "a$ued by rob"ems that s"o)"y eroded his o u"arity. On October <, .000, :"ocos Sur 8overnor %havit Sin$son, a "on$ time friend of the etitioner, accused the etitioner, his fami"y and friends of receivin$ mi""ions of esos from 6ueten$ "ords. /he e- ose5 immediate"y i$nited reactions of ra$e. On =ovember 13, .000, 2ouse S ea4er Vi""ar transmitted the 'rtic"es of :m eachment si$ned by 11> re resentatives or more than 1?3 of a"" the members of the 2ouse of @e resentatives to the Senate. On =ovember .0, .000, the Senate forma""y o ened the im eachment tria" of the

etitioner can rove that he did not resi$n, sti"", he cannot successfu""y c"aim that he is a +resident on "eave on the $round that he is mere"y unab"e to $overn tem orari"y. /hat c"aim has been "aid to rest by %on$ress and the decision that res ondent 'rroyo is the de 6ure +resident made by a co3equa" branch of $overnment cannot be revie)ed by the Su reme %ourt. /he etition )as dismissed. TITLE: MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS

1hether or not, in the e-ercise of the o)ers $ranted by the constitution, the +resident E'quinoF may rohibit the Marcoses from returnin$ to the +hi"i ines7

ri$ht to trave", but it is a )e"" considered vie) that the ri$ht to return may be considered, as a $enera""y acce ted rinci "e of :nternationa" Ka) and under our %onstitution as art of the "a) of the "and. /he court he"d that +resident did not act arbitrari"y or )ith $rave abuse of discretion in determinin$ that the return of the &ormer +res. Marcos and his fami"y oses a serious threat to nationa" interest and )e"fare. +resident 'quino has determined that the destabi"iDation caused by the return of the Marcoses )ou"d )i e a)ay the $ains achieved durin$ the ast fe) years after the Marcos re$ime. /he return of the Marcoses oses a serious threat and therefore rohibitin$ their return to the +hi"i ines, the instant etition )as C:SM:SS,C. TITLE: BIRAOGO ET AL VS. PHIL TRUTH COMMISSIONS CITATION: G.R. 19"93! DATE: DECEMBER 7, "010 FACTS: +resident 'quino si$ned ,. O. =o. 1 estab"ishin$ +hi"i ine /ruth %ommission of .010 E+/%F dated Ju"y 30, .010. +/% is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of the +resident )ith the rimary tas4 to investi$ate re orts of $raft and corru tion committed by third3"eve" ub"ic officers and em "oyees, their co3 rinci a"s, accom "ices and accessories durin$ the revious administration, and to submit its findin$ and recommendations to the +resident, %on$ress and the Ombudsman. +/% has a"" the o)ers of an investi$ative body. (ut it is not a quasi36udicia" body as it cannot ad6udicate, arbitrate, reso"ve, sett"e, or render a)ards in dis utes bet)een contendin$ arties.

THE COURTS RULING: ;:t must be em hasiDed that the individua" ri$ht invo"ved is not the ri$ht to trave" from the +hi"i ines to other countries or )ithin the +hi"i ines. /hese are )hat the ri$ht to trave" )ou"d norma""y connote. ,ssentia""y, the ri$ht invo"ved in this case at bar is the ri$ht to return to one!s country, a distinct ri$ht under internationa" "a), inde endent from a"thou$h re"ated to the ri$ht to trave". /hus, the #niversa" Cec"aration of 2uman @i$hts and the :nternationa" %ovenant on %ivi" and +o"itica" @i$hts treat the ri$ht to freedom of movement and abode )ithin the territory of a state, the ri$ht to "eave the country, and the ri$ht to enter one!s country as se arate and distinct ri$hts. 1hat the Cec"aration s ea4s of is the ;ri$ht to freedom of movement and residence )ithin the borders of each state;. On the other hand, the %ovenant $uarantees the ri$ht to "iberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the ri$ht to be free to "eave any country, inc"udin$ his o)n. Such ri$hts may on"y be restricted by "a)s rotectin$ the nationa" security, ub"ic order, ub"ic hea"th or mora"s or the se arate ri$hts of others.

'"" it can do is $ather, co""ect and assess evidence of $raft and corru tion and ma4e recommendations. :t may have sub oena o)ers but it has no o)er to cite eo "e in contem t, much "ess order their arrest. '"thou$h it is a fact3findin$ body, it cannot determine from such facts if robab"e cause e-ists as to )arrant the fi"in$ of information in our courts of "a). +etitioners as4ed the %ourt to dec"are it unconstitutiona" and to en6oin the +/% from erformin$ its functions. /hey ar$ued thatG EaF ,.O. =o. 1 vio"ates se aration of o)ers as it arro$ates the o)er of the %on$ress to create a ub"ic office and a ro riate funds for its o eration. EbF /he rovision of (oo4 :::, %ha ter 10, Section 31 of the 'dministrative %ode of 198* cannot "e$itimiDe ,.O. =o. 1 because the de"e$ated authority of the +resident to structura""y reor$aniDe the Office of the +resident to achieve economy, sim "icity and efficiency does not inc"ude the o)er to create an entire"y ne) ub"ic office )hich )as hitherto ine-istent "i4e the A/ruth %ommission.B EcF ,.O. =o. 1 i""e$a""y amended the %onstitution and statutes )hen it vested the A/ruth %ommissionB )ith quasi3 6udicia" o)ers du "icatin$, if not su ersedin$, those of the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 198* %onstitution and the COJ created under the 'dministrative %ode of 198*. EdF ,.O. =o. 1 vio"ates the equa" rotection c"ause as it se"ective"y tar$ets for investi$ation and rosecution officia"s and ersonne" of the revious administration as if corru tion is their ecu"iar s ecies even as it e-c"udes those of the other administrations, ast and resent, )ho may be indictab"e.

CITATION: 177 SCRA 668 AND 178 SCRA 769 G.R. NO. 88"11 DATE: SE$TEMBER 1!, 1989 FACTS: /his case invo"ves a etition of mandamus and rohibition as4in$ the court to order the res ondents Secretary of &orei$n 'ffairs, etc. /o issue a trave" documents to former +res. Marcos and the immediate members of his fami"y and to en6oin the im "ementation of the +resident!s decision to bar their return to the +hi"i ines. +etitioners assert that the ri$ht of the Marcoses to return in the +hi"i ines is $uaranteed by the (i"" of @i$hts, s ecifica""y Sections 1 and 0. /hey contended that +res. 'quino is )ithout o)er to im air the "iberty of abode of the Marcoses because on"y a court may do so )ithin the "imits rescribed by "a). =or the +resident im air their ri$ht to trave" because no "a) has authoriDed her to do so. /hey further assert that under internationa" "a), their ri$ht to return to the +hi"i ines is $uaranteed articu"ar"y by the #niversa" Cec"aration of 2uman @i$hts and the :nternationa" %ovenant on %ivi" and +o"itica" @i$hts, )hich has been ratified by the +hi"i ines. ISSUE:

2o)ever, ri$ht to enter one!s country cannot be arbitrari"y de rived. :t )ou"d be therefore ina ro riate to construe the "imitations to the ri$ht to return to ones country in the same conte-t as those ertainin$ to the "iberty of abode and the ri$ht to trave". /he (i"" of ri$hts treats on"y the "iberty of abode and the

@es ondents, throu$h OS8, questioned the "e$a" standin$ of etitioners and ar$ued thatG EaF ,.O. =o. 1 does not arro$ate the o)ers of %on$ress because the +resident5s e-ecutive o)er and o)er of contro" necessari"y inc"ude the inherent o)er to conduct investi$ations to ensure that "a)s are faithfu""y e-ecuted and that, in any event, the %onstitution, @evised 'dministrative %ode of 198*, +C =o. 1<1010 Eas amendedF, @.'. =o. 99*0 and sett"ed 6uris rudence, authoriDe the +resident to create or form such bodies. EbF ,.O. =o. 1 does not usur the o)er of %on$ress to a ro riate funds because there is no a ro riation but a mere a""ocation of funds a"ready a ro riated by %on$ress. EcF/he /ruth %ommission does not du "icate or su ersede the functions of the Ombudsman and the COJ, because it is a fact3findin$ body and not a quasi3 6udicia" body and its functions do not du "icate, su "ant or erode the "atter5s 6urisdiction. EdF /he /ruth %ommission does not vio"ate the equa" rotection c"ause because it )as va"id"y created for "audab"e ur oses. ISSUE: 1hether or not the etitioners have "e$a" standin$ to fi"e the etitions and question ,. O. =o. 17 1hether or not ,. O. =o. 1 vio"ates the rinci "e of se aration of o)ers by usur in$ the o)ers of %on$ress to create and to a ro riate funds for ub"ic offices, a$encies and commissions7

1hether or not ,. O. =o. 1 su "ants the o)ers of the Ombudsman and the COJ7 1hether or not ,. O. =o. 1 vio"ates the equa" rotection c"ause7

Aevery action must be rosecuted or defended in the name of the rea" arty in interest.B @ea"3 arty3in interest is Athe arty )ho stands to be benefited or in6ured by the 6ud$ment in the suit or the arty entit"ed to the avai"s of the suit.B Cifficu"ty of determinin$ "ocus standi arises in ub"ic suits. 2ere, the "aintiff )ho asserts a A ub"ic ri$htB in assai"in$ an a""e$ed"y i""e$a" officia" action, does so as a re resentative of the $enera" ub"ic. 2e has to sho) that he is entit"ed to see4 6udicia" rotection. 2e has to ma4e out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the ub"ic order and the securin$ of re"ief as a AcitiDenB or Ata- ayer. /he erson )ho im u$ns the va"idity of a statute must have Aa ersona" and substantia" interest in the case such that he has sustained, or )i"" sustain direct in6ury as a resu"t.B /he %ourt, ho)ever, finds reason in (irao$o5s assertion that the etition covers matters of transcendenta" im ortance to 6ustify the e-ercise of 6urisdiction by the %ourt. /here are constitutiona" issues in the etition )hich deserve the attention of this %ourt in vie) of their seriousness, nove"ty and )ei$ht as recedents /he ,-ecutive is $iven much "ee)ay in ensurin$ that our "a)s are faithfu""y e-ecuted. /he o)ers of the +resident are not "imited to those s ecific o)ers under the %onstitution. One of the reco$niDed o)ers of the +resident $ranted ursuant to this constitutiona""y3 mandated duty is the o)er to create ad hoc committees. /his f"o)s from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if "a)s have been faithfu""y e-ecuted. /he ur ose of a""o)in$ ad hoc investi$atin$ bodies to e-ist is to a""o) an inquiry into matters )hich the +resident is entit"ed to 4no) so that he can be ro er"y advised and $uided in the erformance of his duties re"ative to the e-ecution and enforcement of the "a)s of the "and.

THE COURTS RULING: /he o)er of 6udicia" revie) is sub6ect to "imitations, to )itG E1F there must be an actua" case or controversy ca""in$ for the e-ercise of 6udicia" o)er9 E.F the erson cha""en$in$ the act must have the standin$ to question the va"idity of the sub6ect act or issuance9 other)ise stated, he must have a ersona" and substantia" interest in the case such that he has sustained, or )i"" sustain, direct in6ury as a resu"t of its enforcement9 E3F the question of constitutiona"ity must be raised at the ear"iest o ortunity9 and E<F the issue of constitutiona"ity must be the very "is mota of the case. /he etition rimari"y invo4es usur ation of the o)er of the %on$ress as a body to )hich they be"on$ as members. /o the e-tent the o)ers of %on$ress are im aired, so is the o)er of each member thereof, since his office confers a ri$ht to artici ate in the e-ercise of the o)ers of that institution. Ke$is"ators have a "e$a" standin$ to see to it that the rero$ative, o)ers and rivi"e$es vested by the %onstitution in their office remain invio"ate. /hus, they are a""o)ed to question the va"idity of any officia" action )hich, to their mind, infrin$es on their rero$atives as "e$is"ators. 1ith re$ard to (irao$o, he has not sho)n that he sustained, or is in dan$er of sustainin$, any ersona" and direct in6ury attributab"e to the im "ementation of ,. O. =o. 1. Kocus standi is Aa ri$ht of a earance in a court of 6ustice on a $iven question.B :n rivate suits, standin$ is $overned by the Area"3 arties3in interestB ru"e. :t rovides that

/here )i"" be no a ro riation but on"y an a""otment or a""ocations of e-istin$ funds a"ready a ro riated. /here is no usur ation on the art of the ,-ecutive of the o)er of %on$ress to a ro riate funds. /here is no need to s ecify the amount to be earmar4ed for the o eration of the commission because, )hatever funds the %on$ress has rovided for the Office of the +resident )i"" be the very source of the funds for the commission. /he amount that )ou"d be a""ocated to the +/% sha"" be sub6ect to e-istin$ auditin$ ru"es and re$u"ations so there is no im ro riety in the fundin$. +hi" /ruth %ommission )i"" not su "ant the Ombudsman or the COJ or erode their res ective o)ers. :f at a"", the investi$ative function of the commission )i"" com "ement those of the t)o offices. /he function of determinin$ robab"e cause for the fi"in$ of the a ro riate com "aints before the courts remains to be )ith the COJ and the Ombudsman. +/%5s o)er to investi$ate is "imited to obtainin$ facts so that it can advise and $uide the +resident in the erformance of his duties re"ative to the e-ecution and enforcement of the "a)s of the "and. %ourt finds difficu"ty in u ho"din$ the constitutiona"ity of ,-ecutive Order =o. 1 in vie) of its a arent trans$ression of the equa" rotection c"ause enshrined in Section 1, 'rtic"e ::: E(i"" of @i$htsF of the 198* %onstitution. ,qua" rotection requires that a"" ersons or thin$s simi"ar"y situated shou"d be treated a"i4e, both as to ri$hts conferred and res onsibi"ities im osed. :t requires ub"ic bodies and institutions to treat simi"ar"y situated individua"s in a simi"ar manner. /he ur ose of the equa" rotection c"ause is to secure every erson )ithin a state5s 6urisdiction a$ainst intentiona" and arbitrary discrimination, )hether occasioned by the e- ress terms of a statue or by its im ro er e-ecution throu$h the state5s du"y constituted authorities. /here must

be equa"ity amon$ equa"s as determined accordin$ to a va"id c"assification. ,qua" rotection c"ause ermits c"assification. Such c"assification, ho)ever, to be va"id must ass the test of reasonab"eness. /he test has four requisitesG E1F /he c"assification rests on substantia" distinctions9 E.F :t is $ermane to the ur ose of the "a)9 E3F :t is not "imited to e-istin$ conditions on"y9 and E<F :t a "ies equa""y to a"" members of the same c"ass. /he c"assification )i"" be re$arded as inva"id if a"" the members of the c"ass are not simi"ar"y treated, both as to ri$hts conferred and ob"i$ations im osed. ,-ecutive Order =o. 1 shou"d be struc4 do)n as vio"ative of the equa" rotection c"ause. /he c"ear mandate of truth commission is to investi$ate and find out the truth concernin$ the re orted cases of $raft and corru tion durin$ the revious administration on"y. /he intent to sin$"e out the revious administration is "ain, atent and manifest. 'rroyo administration is but 6ust a member of a c"ass, that is, a c"ass of ast administrations. :t is not a c"ass of its o)n. =ot to inc"ude ast administrations simi"ar"y situated constitutes arbitrariness )hich the equa" rotection c"ause cannot sanction. Such discriminatin$ differentiation c"ear"y reverberates to "abe" the commission as a vehic"e for vindictiveness and se"ective retribution. Su erficia" differences do not ma4e for a va"id c"assification. /he +/% must not e-c"ude the other ast administrations. /he +/% must, at "east, have the authority to investi$ate a"" ast administrations. /he %onstitution is the fundamenta" and aramount "a) of the nation to )hich a"" other "a)s must conform and in accordance )ith )hich a"" rivate ri$hts determined and a"" ub"ic authority administered. Ka)s that do not conform to the %onstitution shou"d be stric4en

do)n for bein$ unconstitutiona". /he etitions )ere 8@'=/,C. ,-ecutive Order =o. 1 )as dec"ared unconstitutiona" insofar as it is vio"ative of the equa" rotection c"ause of the %onstitution. TITLE: DENR VS. DENR EMPLOYEES

CITATION: G.R. NO. 1497"! DATE: AUGUST 19, "003 FACTS: @es ondents, em "oyees of the C,=@ @e$ion L:: )ho are members of the em "oyees association, A%O#@'8,B, re resented by their 'ctin$ +resident, (a$uindanai '. Marim, fi"ed )ith the @e$iona" /ria" %ourt of %otabato, a etition for nu""ity of orders )ith rayer for re"iminary in6unction. On Cecember 8, 1999, the tria" court issued a tem orary restrainin$ order en6oinin$ etitioner from im "ementin$ the assai"ed Memorandum. /he defendants C,=@ Secretary 'ntonio 2. %eri""es and @e$iona" ,-ecutive Cirector :srae" %. 8addi )ere ordered to cease and desist from doin$ the act com "ained of, name"y, to sto the transfer of C,=@ N@e$ionO 1. offices from %otabato %ity to Moranda" EMarbe"F, South %otabato. +etitioner fi"ed a Motion for @econsideration )ith Motion to Cismiss, raisin$ the fo""o)in$ $roundsG E1F /he o)er to transfer the @e$iona" Office of the Ce artment of ,nvironment and =atura" @esources EC,=@F is e-ecutive in nature. E.F /he decision to transfer the @e$iona" Office is based on ,-ecutive Order =o. <.9, )hich reor$aniDed @e$ion L::. E3F /he va"idity of ,O <.9 has been affirmed by the 2onorab"e Su reme %ourt in the %ase of %hion$bian vs. Orbos E199>F .<> S%@' .>>. E<F Since the o)er to reor$aniDe the 'dministrative @e$ions is ,-ecutive in =ature citin$ %hion$bian, the 2onorab"e %ourt has no 6urisdiction to entertain this etition.

+etitioner5s motion for reconsideration )as denied in an Order dated ' ri" 10, .000. ' etition for certiorari under @u"e 0> )as fi"ed before the %ourt of ' ea"s, doc4eted as %'38.@. S+ =o. >8890. /he etition )as dismissed outri$ht forG E1F fai"ure to submit a )ritten e- "anation )hy ersona" service )as not done on the adverse arty9 E.F fai"ure to attach affidavit of service9 E3F fai"ure to indicate the materia" dates )hen co ies of the orders of the "o)er court )ere received9 E<F fai"ure to attach certified true co y of the order denyin$ etitioner5s motion for reconsideration9 E>F for im ro er verification, the same bein$ based on etitioner5s A4no)"ed$e and be"ief,B and E0F )ron$ remedy of certiorari under @u"e 0> to substitute a "ost a ea". :n essence, etitioner ar$ues that the tria" court erred in en6oinin$ it from causin$ the transfer of the C,=@ L:: @e$iona" Offices, considerin$ that it )as done ursuant to C,=@ 'dministrative Order 9931<. ISSUE: 1hether C'O39931< and the Memorandum im "ementin$ the same )ere va"id7 1hether the C,=@ Secretary has the authority to reor$aniDe the C,=@7

e-ecutive de artment. /hus, in CO/% Secretary v. Maba"ot,N.1O )e he"d that the +resident P throu$h his du"y constituted o"itica" a$ent and a"ter e$o, the CO/% Secretary P may "e$a""y and va"id"y decree the reor$aniDation of the Ce artment, articu"ar"y the estab"ishment of CO/%3%'@ as the K/&@( @e$iona" Office at the %ordi""era 'dministrative @e$ion, )ith the concomitant transfer and erformance of ub"ic functions and res onsibi"ities a urtenant to a re$iona" office of the K/&@(. Simi"ar"y, in the case at bar, the C,=@ Secretary can va"id"y reor$aniDe the C,=@ by orderin$ the transfer of the C,=@ L:: @e$iona" Offices from %otabato %ity to Moronada", South %otabato. /he e-ercise of this authority by the C,=@ Secretary, as an a"ter e$o, is resumed to be the acts of the +resident for the "atter had not e- ress"y re udiated the same. :n %hion$bian v. Orbos, this %ourt stressed the ru"e that the o)er of the +resident to reor$aniDe the administrative re$ions carries )ith it the o)er to determine the re$iona" centers. :n identifyin$ the re$iona" centers, the +resident ur ose"y intended the effective de"ivery of the fie"d services of $overnment a$encies. /he same intention can be $"eaned from the reamb"e of the assai"ed C'O39931< )hich the C,=@ sou$ht to achieve, that is, to im rove the efficiency and effectiveness of the C,=@ in de"iverin$ its services. :t may be true that the transfer of the offices may not be time"y considerin$ thatG E1F there are no bui"din$s yet to house the re$iona" offices in Moronada", E.F the transfer fa""s on the month of @amadan, E3F the chi"dren of the affected em "oyees are a"ready enro""ed in schoo"s in %otabato %ity, E<F the @e$iona" Ceve"o ment %ounci" )as not consu"ted,

THE COURTS RULING: 's head of the ,-ecutive Ce artment, the +resident cannot be e- ected to e-ercise his contro" Eand su ervisoryF o)ers ersona""y a"" the time. 2e may de"e$ate some of his o)ers to the %abinet members e-ce t )hen he is required by the %onstitution to act in erson or the e-i$encies of the situation demand that he acts ersona""y ' "yin$ the doctrine of qua"ified o"itica" a$ency, the o)er of the +resident to reor$aniDe the =ationa" 8overnment may va"id"y be de"e$ated to his cabinet members e-ercisin$ contro" over a articu"ar

and E>F the San$$unian$ +an$"un$sond, throu$h a reso"ution, requested the C,=@ Secretary to reconsider the orders. 2o)ever, these concern issues addressed to the )isdom of the transfer rather than to its "e$a"ity. :t is basic in our form of $overnment that the 6udiciary cannot inquire into the )isdom or e- ediency of the acts of the e-ecutive or the "e$is"ative de artment,N.<O for each de artment is su reme and inde endent of the others, and each is devoid of authority not on"y to encroach u on the o)ers or fie"d of action assi$ned to any of the other de artment, but a"so to inquire into or ass u on the advisabi"ity or )isdom of the acts erformed, measures ta4en or decisions made by the other de artments. /he Su reme %ourt shou"d not be thou$ht of as havin$ been tas4ed )ith the a)esome res onsibi"ity of overseein$ the entire bureaucracy. #n"ess there is a c"ear sho)in$ of constitutiona" infirmity or $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to "ac4 or e-cess of 6urisdiction, the %ourt5s e-ercise of the 6udicia" o)er, ervasive and "imit"ess it may seem to be, sti"" must succumb to the aramount doctrine of se aration of o)ers.N.0O 'fter a carefu" revie) of the records of the case, )e find that this 6uris rudentia" e"ement of abuse of discretion has not been sho)n to e-ist. :n vie) of the fore$oin$, the etition for revie) )as $ranted. /he reso"utions of the %ourt of ' ea"s in %'38.@. S+ =o. >8890 dated May 31, .000 and 'u$ust .0, .001, as )e"" as the decision dated January 1<, .000 of the @e$iona" /ria" %ourt of %otabato %ity, (ranch 1>, in %ivi" %ase =o 389, )ere @,V,@S,C and S,/ 'S:C,. /he ermanent in6unction, )hich en6oined the etitioner from enforcin$ the Memorandum Order of the C,=@ L:: @e$iona" ,-ecutive Cirector )as "ifted. TITLE: MONDANO VS. SILVOSA

CITATION: 97 $HIL 143 DATE: MA# 30, 19!! FACTS: Mondano )as the mayor of Mainit, Suri$ao. ' com "aint )as fi"ed a$ainst him for ra e and concubina$e. /he information reached the 'ssistant ,-ecutive Secretary )ho ordered the $overnor to investi$ate the matter. Si"vosa then summoned Mondano and the "atter a eared before him. /hereafter Si"vosa sus ended Mondano. Mondano fi"ed a etition for rohibition en6oinin$ the $overnor from further roceedin$. Si"vosa invo4ed the @'% )hich rovided that he, as art of the e-ecutive and by virtue o the order $iven by the 'sst ,-ec Sec, is )ith Adirect contro", direction, and su ervision over a"" bureaus and offices under his 6urisdiction B and to that end Amay order the investi$ation of any act or conduct of any erson in the service of any bureau or office under his Ce artment and in connection there)ith may a oint a committee or desi$nate an officia" or erson )ho sha"" conduct such investi$ations. ISSUE: 1hether or not the 8overnor can e-ercise the o)er of contro"7

been invested )ith the o)er of contro" of a"" the e-ecutive de artments, bureaus, or offices, but not of a"" "oca" $overnments over )hich he has been $ranted on"y the o)er of $enera" su ervision as may be rovided by "a). /he Ce artment head as a$ent of the +resident has direct contro" and su ervision over a"" bureaus and offices under his 6urisdiction as rovided for in section *9EcF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode, but he does not have the same contro" of "oca" $overnments as that e-ercised by him over bureaus and offices under his 6urisdiction. Ki4e)ise, his authority to order the investi$ation of any act or conduct of any erson in the service of any bureau or office under his de artment is confined to bureaus or offices under his 6urisdiction and does not e-tend to "oca" $overnments over )hich, as a"ready stated, the +resident e-ercises on"y $enera" su ervision as may be rovided by "a). :f the rovisions of section *9

su ervision. :n administrative "a) su ervision means overseein$ or the o)er or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers erform their duties. :f the "atter fai" or ne$"ect to fu"fi"" them the former may ta4e such action or ste as rescribed by "a) to ma4e them erform their duties. %ontro", on the other hand, means the o)er of an officer to a"ter or modify or nu""ify or set aside )hat a subordinate officer had done in the erformance of his duties and to substitute the 6ud$ment of the former for that of the "atter. Such is the im ort of the rovisions of sec *9 EcF of the @'%. /he %on$ress has e- ress"y and s ecifica""y "od$ed the rovincia" su ervision over munici a" officia"s in the rovincia" $overnor )ho is authoriDed to Areceive and investi$ate com "aints made under oath a$ainst munici a" officers for ne$"ect of duty, o ression, corru tion or other form of ma"administration of office, and conviction by fina" 6ud$ment of any crime invo"vin$ mora" tur itude.B 'nd if the char$es are serious, Ahe sha"" submit )ritten char$es touchin$ the matter to the rovincia" board, furnishin$ a co y of such char$es to the accused either ersona""y or by re$istered mai", and he may in such case sus end the officer Enot bein$ the munici a" treasurerF endin$ action by the board, if in his o inion the char$e be one affectin$ the officia" inte$rity of the officer in question.B Sec 80 of the @evised 'dministrative %ode adds nothin$ to the o)er of su ervision to be e-ercised by the Ce artment 2ead over the administration of munici a"ities :f it be construed that it does and such additiona" o)er is the same authority as that vested in the Ce artment 2ead by sec *9 EcF of the @'%, then such additiona" o)er must be deemed to have been abro$ated by sec10E1F, 'rtic"e *, of the %onstitution.

THE COURTS RULING: /he e-ecutive de artments of the 8overnment created and or$aniDed before the a rova" of the %onstitution continued to e-ist as AauthoriDed by "a) unti" the %on$ress sha"" rovide other)ise.B /he %onstitution rovidesG A/he +resident sha"" have contro" of a"" the e-ecutive de artments, bureaus, or offices, e-ercise $enera" su ervision over a"" "oca" $overnments as may be rovided by "a), and ta4e care that the "a)s be faithfu""y e-ecuted.B #nder this constitutiona" rovision the +resident has

EcF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode are to be construed as conferrin$ u on the corres ondin$ de artment head direct contro", direction, and su ervision over a"" "oca" $overnments and that for that reason he may order the investi$ation of an officia" of a "oca" $overnment for ma"feasance in office, such inter retation )ou"d be contrary to the rovisions of ar 1, sec 10, 'rtic"e *, of the 193> %onstitution. :f A$enera" su ervision over a"" "oca" $overnmentsB is to be construed as the same o)er $ranted to the Ce artment 2ead in sec *9 EcF of the @'%, then there )ou"d no "on$er be a distinction or difference bet)een the o)er of contro" and that of

TITLE: VILLENA VS. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR CITATION: 67 $HIL 4!1 G.R. NO. L 46!70 DATE: A$RIL "1, 1939 FACTS: +etitioner, Vi""ena )as the then mayor of Ma4ati. 'fter investi$ation, the Secretary of :nterior recommended the sus ension of Vi""ena )ith the Office of the resident )ho a roved the same. /he Secretary then sus ended Vi""ena. Vi""ena averred c"aimin$ that the Secretary has no 6urisdiction over the matter. /he o)er or 6urisdiction is "od$ed in the "oca" $overnment Nthe $overnorO ursuant to sec .188 of the 'dministrative %ode. &urther, even if the res ondent Secretary of the :nterior has o)er of su ervision over "oca" $overnments, that o)er, accordin$ to the constitution, must be e-ercised in accordance )ith the rovisions of "a) and the rovisions of "a) $overnin$ tria"s of char$es a$ainst e"ective munici a" officia"s are those contained in sec .188 of the 'dministrative %ode as amended. :n other )ords, the Secretary of the :nterior must e-ercise his su ervision over "oca" $overnments, if he has that o)er under e-istin$ "a), in accordance )ith sec .188 of the 'dministrative %ode, as amended, as the "atter rovisions $overn the rocedure to be fo""o)ed in sus endin$ and unishin$ e"ective "oca" officia"s )hi"e sec *9 E%F of the 'dministrative %ode is the $enera "a) )hich must yie"d to the s ecia" "a). ISSUE: 1hether or not the Secretary of :nterior can sus end an K8# officia" under investi$ation7

THE COURTS RULING: /here is no c"ear and e- ress $rant of o)er to the secretary to sus end a mayor of a munici a"ity )ho is under investi$ation. On the contrary, the o)er a ears "od$ed in the rovincia" $overnor by sec .188 of the 'dministrative %ode )hich rovides that A/he rovincia" $overnor sha"" receive and investi$ate com "aints made under oath a$ainst munici a" officers for ne$"ect of duty, o ression, corru tion or other form of ma"administration of office, and conviction by fina" 6ud$ment of any crime invo"vin$ mora" tur itude. /he fact, ho)ever, that the o)er of sus ension is e- ress"y $ranted by sec .188 of the 'dministrative %ode to the rovincia" $overnor does not mean that the $rant is necessari"y e-c"usive and rec"udes the Secretary of the :nterior from e-ercisin$ a simi"ar o)er. &or instance, counse" for the etitioner admitted in the ora" ar$ument that the +resident of the +hi"i ines may himse"f sus end the etitioner from office in virtue of his $reater o)er of remova" Esec. .191, as amended, 'dministrative %odeF to be e-ercised conformab"y to "a). :ndeed, if the

'dministrative %odeF, the +resident )ere to be )ithout the o)er to sus end a munici a" officia". /he o)er to sus end a munici a" officia" is not e-c"usive. +reventive sus ension may be issued to $ive )ay for an im artia" investi$ation.

1hether or not the o)er of contro" may be de"e$ated to the ,-ec Sec and may it be further de"e$ated by the ,-ecutive Secretary7

THE COURTS RULING: /he +resident5s duty to e-ecute the "a) is of constitutiona" ori$in. So, too, is his contro" of a"" e-ecutive de artments. /hus it is, that de artment heads are men of his confidence. 2is is the o)er to a oint them9 his, too, is the rivi"e$e to dismiss them at "easure. =atura""y, he contro"s and directs their acts. :m "icit then is his authority to $o over, confirm, modify or reverse the action ta4en by his de artment secretaries. :n this conte-t, it may not be said that the +resident cannot ru"e on the correctness of a decision of a de artment secretary. +arenthetica""y, it may be stated that the ri$ht to a ea" to the +resident re oses u on the +resident5s o)er of contro" over the e-ecutive de artments. 'nd contro" sim "y means Athe o)er of an officer to a"ter or modify or nu""ify or set aside )hat a subordinate officer had done in the erformance of his duties and to substitute the 6ud$ment of the former for that of the "atter.B :t is correct to say that constitutiona" o)ers there are )hich the +resident must e-ercise in erson. =ot as correct, ho)ever, is it to say that the %hief ,-ecutive may not de"e$ate to his ,-ecutive Secretary acts )hich the %onstitution does not command that he erform in erson. @eason is not )antin$ for this vie). /he +resident is not e- ected to erform in erson a"" the mu"tifarious e-ecutive and administrative functions. /he office of the ,-ecutive Secretary is an au-i"iary unit )hich assists the +resident. /he ru"e )hich has thus $ained reco$nition is that

TITLE: LACSON-MAGALLANES CO. INC VS. PAO CITATION: "1 SCRA 89! G.R. NO. L "7811 DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1967 FACTS: Ma$a""anes )as ermitted to use and occu y a "and used for asture in Cavao. /he said "and )as a forest Done )hich )as "ater dec"ared as an a$ricu"tura" Done. Ma$a""anes then ceded his ri$hts to KM% of )hich he is a co3o)ner. +aQo )as a farmer )ho asserted his c"aim over the same iece of "and. /he Cirector of Kands denied +aQo5s request. /he Secretary of '$ricu"ture "i4e)ise denied his etition hence it )as e"evated to the Office of the +resident. ,-ec Sec +a6o ru"ed in favor of +aQo. KM% averred that the ear"ier decision of the Secretary is a"ready conc"usive hence beyond a ea". 2e a"so averred that the decision of the ,-ecutive Secretary is an undue de"e$ation of o)er. /he %onstitution, KM% asserts, does not contain any rovision )hereby the residentia" o)er of contro" may be de"e$ated to the ,-ecutive Secretary. :t is ar$ued that it is the constitutiona" duty of the +resident to act ersona""y u on the matter. ISSUE:

+resident cou"d, in the manner rescribed by "a), remove a munici a" officia"9 it )ou"d be a "e$a" incon$ruity if he )ere to be devoid of the "esser o)er of sus ension. 'nd the incon$ruity )ou"d be more atent if, ossessed of the o)er both to sus end and to remove a rovincia" officia" Esec. .0*8,

Aunder our constitutiona" setu the ,-ecutive Secretary )ho acts for and in beha"f and by authority of the +resident has an undis uted 6urisdiction to affirm, modify, or even reverse any orderB that the Secretary of '$ricu"ture and =atura" @esources, inc"udin$ the Cirector of Kands, may issue. TITLE: GANZON V.S COURT OF APPEALS CITATION: G.R. NO. 93"!" DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1991 FACTS: 8anDon )as the then mayor of :"oi"o %ity. 10 com "aints )ere fi"ed a$ainst him on $rounds of misconduct and misfeasance of office. /he Secretary of Koca" 8overnment issued a 000 day sus ension a$ainst 8anDon based on the merits of the com "aints fi"ed a$ainst him. 8anDon a ea"ed the issue to the %' and the %' affirmed the sus ension order by the Secretary. 8anDon asserted that the 198* %onstitution does not authoriDe the +resident nor any of his a"ter e$o to sus end and remove "oca" officia"s9 this is because the 198* %onstitution su orts "oca" autonomy and stren$thens the same. 1hat )as $iven by the resent %onstitution )as mere su ervisory o)er. ISSUE: 1hether or not the Secretary of Koca" 8overnment, as the +resident5s a"ter e$o, can sus end and or remove "oca" officia"s7

su ervisory o)ers, )hich su osed"y e-c"udes the o)er of investi$ation, and denied her contro", )hich a""e$ed"y embraces disci "inary authority. :t is a mista4en im ression because "e$a""y, Asu ervisionB is not incom atib"e )ith disci "inary authority. /he S% had occasion to discuss the sco e and e-tent of the o)er of su ervision by the +resident over "oca" $overnment officia"s in contrast to the o)er of contro" $iven to him over e-ecutive officia"s of our $overnment )herein it )as em hasiDed that the t)o terms, contro" and su ervision, are t)o different thin$s )hich differ one from the other in meanin$ and e-tent. A:n administration "a) su ervision means overseein$ or the o)er or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers erform their duties. :f the "atter fai" or ne$"ect to fu"fi"" them the former may ta4e such action or ste as rescribed by "a) to ma4e them erform their duties. %ontro", on the other hand, means the o)er of an officer to a"ter or modify or nu""ify of set aside )hat a subordinate officer had done in the erformance of his duties and to substitute the 6ud$ment of the former for that of the "atter.B (ut from this ronouncement it cannot be reasonab"y inferred that the o)er of su ervision of the +resident over "oca" $overnment officia"s does not inc"ude the o)er of investi$ation )hen in his o inion the $ood of the ub"ic service so requires. /he Secretary of Koca" 8overnment, as the a"ter e$o of the resident, in sus endin$ 8anDon is e-ercisin$ a va"id o)er. 2e ho)ever overste ed by im osin$ a 000 day sus ension. /he ur$ent motion of etitioner, dated * Se tember 1991 )as $ranted. /he tem orary restrainin$ order dated > Se tember 1991 )as "ifted. @es ondents are ordered to a""o) etitioner to re3

assume his office as e"ected Mayor of :"oi"o %ity effective immediate"y. /he %ourt of ' ea" is directed to dismiss %'38.@. S+ =o. .>8<0 for havin$ become moot and academic. /he @e$ion /ria" %ourt of :"oi"o %ity, (ranch 33 before )hich etitioner5s action for rohibition ES ecia" %ivi" 'ction =o. 1831.F is endin$ is a"so ordered to dismiss the said case for havin$ become moot and academic insofar as etitioner rays therein to en6oin his EsecondF reventive sus ension. /his reso"ution is )ithout re6udice to the administrative cases E)here the first, second, third and fourth reventive sus ension orders )ere issuedF roceedin$ on the merits thereof. '"so, as decreed in the main decision of > 'u$ust 1991. +etitioner, Mayor @odo"fo 8anDon, may not be made to serve future sus ensions on account of any of the remainin$ administrative char$es endin$ a$ainst him for acts committed rior to 'u$ust 11, 1988.

a""o)ances of +1,.00 each throu$h the year"y a ro riation ordinance enacted by the San$$unian$ +an"un$sod of the said city. :n 1991, Mandaue %ity increased the amount to +1,>00 for each 6ud$e. On March 1>, 199<, the Ce artment of (ud$et and Mana$ement EC(MF issued the dis uted Koca" (ud$et %ircu"ar =o. >> EK(% >>F )hich rovided that 3 :n the "i$ht of the authority $ranted to the "oca" $overnment units under the Koca" 8overnment %ode to rovide for additiona" a""o)ances and other benefits to nationa" $overnment officia"s and em "oyees assi$ned in their "oca"ity, such additiona" a""o)ances in the form of honorarium at rates not e-ceedin$ +1,000.00 in rovinces and cities and +*00.00 in munici a"ities may be $ranted sub6ect to the fo""o)in$ conditionsG aF /hat the $rant is not mandatory on the art of the K8#s9 bF /hat a"" contractua" and statutory ob"i$ations of the K8# inc"udin$ the im "ementation of @.'. 0*>8 sha"" have been fu""y rovided in the bud$et9 cF /hat the bud$etary requirements?"imitations under Section 3.< and 3.> of @.'. *100 shou"d be satisfied and?or com "ied )ith9 and dF /hat the K8# has fu""y im "emented the devo"ution of functions? ersonne" in accordance )ith @.'. *100. 'ctin$ on the C(M directive, the Mandaue %ity 'uditor issued notices of disa""o)ance to herein etitioners, name"y, 2onorab"e @/% Jud$es Mercedes 8. Cado"e, #"ric @. %aQete, '$ustin @. Vesti", 2onorab"e M/% Jud$es /emistoc"es M. (oho"st, Vicente %. &ani"a$ and 1i"fredo '. Ca$atan, in e-cess of the amount authoriDed by K(% >>. (e$innin$ October, 199<, the additiona" month"y a""o)ances of the etitioner 6ud$es )ere reduced to +1,000 each. /hey )ere a"so as4ed to reimburse the amount they received in e-cess of +1,000 from ' ri" to Se tember, 199<.

TITLE: AUDIT

DADOLE VS COMMISSION ON

THE COURTS RULING: 8anDon is under the im ression that the %onstitution has "eft the +resident mere

CITATION: G.R. NO. 1"! 3!0 DATE: DECEMBER 3, "00" FACTS: :n 1980, the @/% and M/% 6ud$es of Mandaue %ity started receivin$ month"y

/he etitioner 6ud$es fi"ed )ith the Office of the %ity 'uditor a rotest a$ainst the notices of disa""o)ance. (ut the %ity 'uditor treated the rotest as a motion for reconsideration and indorsed the same to the %O' @e$iona" Office =o. *. :n turn, the %O' @e$iona" Office referred the motion to the head office )ith a recommendation that the same be denied. On Se tember .1, 199>, res ondent %O' rendered a decision denyin$ etitioners5 motion for reconsideration. On =ovember .*, 199>, ,-ecutive Jud$e Mercedes 8oDo3Cado"e, for and in beha"f of the etitioner 6ud$es, fi"ed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the %O'. :n a reso"ution dated May .8, 1990, the %O' denied the motion. ISSUE: 1hether or not the administrative circu"ar or $uide"ine such as Koca" (ud$et %ircu"ar =o. >> render ino erative the o)er of the "e$is"ative body of a city by settin$ a "imit /o the e-tent of the e-ercise of such o)er7

@es ondent avers that Mandaue %ity used its :@' to ay for said additiona" a""o)ances and this vio"ated ara$ra h . of the S ecia" +rovisions, a$e 1000, of @' *8<> E/he 8enera" ' ro riations 'ct of 199>F1N1.O and ara$ra h 3 of the S ecia" +rovision, a$e 1..>, of @' *003 E/he 8enera" ' ro riations 'ct of 199<F.N13O )hich s ecifica""y identified the ob6ects of e- enditure of the :@'. =o)here in said rovisions of the t)o bud$etary "a)s does it say that the :@' can be used for additiona" a""o)ances of 6ud$es. @es ondent %O' thus ar$ues that the rovisions in the ordinance rovidin$ for such disbursement are a$ainst the "a), considerin$ that the $rant of the sub6ect a""o)ances is not )ithin the s ecified use a""o)ed by the aforesaid year"y a ro riations acts. @es ondent %O' fai"ed to rove that Mandaue %ity used the :@' to s end for the additiona" a""o)ances of the 6ud$es. /here )as no evidence submitted by %O' sho)in$ the brea4do)n of the e- enses of the city $overnment and the funds used for said e- enses. '"" the %O' resented )ere the amounts e- ended, the "oca""y $enerated revenues, the deficit, the sur "us and the :@' received each year. 'side from these items, no data or fi$ures )ere resented to sho) that Mandaue %ity deducted the sub6ect a""o)ances from the :@'. :n other )ords, 6ust because Mandaue %ity5s "oca""y $enerated revenues )ere not enou$h to cover its e- enditures, this did not mean that the additiona" a""o)ances of etitioner 6ud$es )ere ta4en from the :@' and not from the city5s o)n revenues. Moreover, the C(M neither conducted a forma" revie) nor ordered a disa rova" of Mandaue %ity5s a ro riation

ordinances, in accordance )ith the rocedure out"ined by Sections 3.0 and 3.* of @' *100 )hich rovide thatG

Mandaue %ity and a""o)ed the 903day eriod to "a se, it can no "on$er question the "e$a"ity of the rovisions in the said ordinance $rantin$ additiona" a""o)ances to 6ud$es stationed in the said city. /he etition )as $ranted and the assai"ed decision and reso"ution, dated Se tember .1, 199> and May .8, 1990, res ective"y, of the %ommission on 'udit )ere set aside.

Section 3.0. @evie) of ' ro riation Ordinances of +rovinces, 2i$h"y #rbaniDed %ities, :nde endent %om onent %ities, and Munici a"ities )ithin the Metro o"itan Mani"a 'rea. /he Ce artment of (ud$et and Mana$ement sha"" revie) ordinances authoriDin$ the annua" or su "ementa" a ro riations of rovinces, hi$h"y3urbaniDed cities, inde endent com onent cities, and munici a"ities )ithin the Metro o"itan Mani"a 'rea in accordance )ith the immediate"y succeedin$ Section. Section 3.*. @evie) of ' ro riation Ordinances of %om onent %ities and Munici a"ities.3 /he san$$uninan$ an"a"a)i$an sha"" revie) the ordinance authoriDin$ annua" or su "ementa" a ro riations of com onent cities and munici a"ities in the same manner and )ithin the same eriod rescribed for the revie) of other ordinances. :f )ithin ninety E90F days from recei t of co ies of such ordinance, the san$$unian$ an"a"a)i$an ta4es no action thereon, the same sha"" be deemed to have been revie)ed in accordance )ith "a) and sha"" continue to be in fu"" force and effect. 1ithin 90 days from recei t of the co ies of the a ro riation ordinance, the C(M shou"d have ta4en ositive action. Other)ise, such ordinance )as deemed to have been ro er"y revie)ed and deemed to have ta4en effect. :nasmuch as, in the instant case, the C(M did not fo""o) the a ro riate rocedure for revie)in$ the sub6ect ordinance of

TITLE:

GPI VS. SPRINGER G.R. NO.

CITATION: !0 $HIL "!9 "6979 DATE: A$RIL 1, 19"7 FACTS:

THE COURTS RULING: 'ccordin$ to res ondent %O', even if K(% >> )ere void, the ordinances enacted by Mandaue %ity $rantin$ additiona" a""o)ances to the etitioner 6ud$es )ou"d Asti"" EbeF bereft of "e$a" basis for )ant of a "a)fu" source of funds considerin$ that the :@' cannot be used for such purposes.B @es ondent %O' sho)ed that Mandaue %ity5s funds consisted of "oca""y $enerated revenues and the :@'. &rom 1989 to 199>, Mandaue %ity5s year"y e- enditures e-ceeded its "oca""y $enerated revenues, thus resu"tin$ in a deficit. Curin$ a"" those years, it )as the :@' that enab"ed Mandaue %ity to incur a sur "us.

Sometime in the 1900s, the =ationa" %oa" %om any E=%%F )as created by the +hi"i ine %on$ress. /he "a) created it E'ct =o. .8..F rovides thatG A/he votin$ o)er R sha"" be vested e-c"usive"y in a committee consistin$ of the 8overnor3 8enera", the +resident of the Senate, and the S ea4er of the 2ouse of @e resentatives.B :n =ovember 19.0, the 8overnor38enera" EKeonard 1oodF issued ,.O. =o. 3* )hich divested the votin$ ri$hts of the Senate +resident and 2ouse S ea4er in the =%%. /he ,O em hasiDed that the votin$ ri$ht shou"d be so"e"y "od$ed in the 8overnor3 8enera" )ho is the head of the $overnment E+resident at that time )as considered the head of state but does not mana$e $overnment affairsF. ' co y of the said ,O )as furnished to the Senate +resident and the 2ouse S ea4er. 2o)ever, in Cecember 19.0, =%% he"d its e"ections and the Senate +resident as

1 .

)e"" as the 2ouse S ea4er, not)ithstandin$ ,O =o. 3* and the ob6ection of the 8overnor38enera", sti"" e"ected Mi"ton S rin$er and four others as (oard of Cirectors of =%%. /hereafter, a 8uo warranto roceedin$ in beha"f of the $overnment )as fi"ed a$ainst S rin$er et a" questionin$ the va"idity of their e"ection into the (oard of =%%. ISSUE: 1hether or not the Senate +resident as )e"" as the 2ouse S ea4er can va"id"y e"ect the (oard Members of =%%7

#nited States c"ear"y intended that the 8overnor3 8enera"5s o)er shou"d be commensurate )ith his res onsibi"ity. /he %on$ress never intended that the 8overnor38enera" shou"d be sadd"ed )ith the res onsibi"ity of administerin$ the $overnment and of e-ecutin$ the "a)s but shorn of the o)er to do so. /he interests of the +hi"i ines )i"" be best served by strict adherence to the basic rinci "es of constitutiona" $overnment. /here )as no hesitancy in conc"udin$ that so much of section < of 'ct =o. .*0>, as amended by section . of 'ct =o. .8.., as ur orts to vest the votin$ o)er of the $overnment3o)ned stoc4 in the =ationa" %oa" %om any in the +resident of the Senate and the S ea4er of the 2ouse of @e resentatives, is unconstitutiona" and void. :t resu"ts, therefore, in the demurrer bein$ overru"ed, and as it )ou"d be im racticab"e for the defendants to ans)er, 6ud$ment sha"" be rendered oustin$ and e-c"udin$ them from the offices of directors of the =ationa" %oa" %om any.

(ud$et, from effectin$ disbursements in ayment of Mison5s sa"aries and emo"uments, on the $round that Mison5s a ointment as %ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustoms is unconstitutiona" by reason of its not havin$ been confirmed by the %ommission on ' ointments. /he res ondents, on the other hand, maintain the constitutiona"ity of res ondent Mison5s a ointment )ithout the confirmation of the %ommission on ' ointments. ISSUE: 1hether or not a"" a ointments made by the resident require a rova" of the %ommission on ' ointments to be va"id7

:t is a arent, that there are four E<F $rou s of officers )hom the +resident sha"" a oint. /hese four E<F $rou s areG &irst, the heads of the e-ecutive de artments, ambassadors, other ub"ic ministers and consu"s, officers of the armed forces from the ran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain, and other officers )hose a ointments are vested in him in this %onstitution9 Second, a"" other officers of the 8overnment )hose a ointments are not other)ise rovided for by "a)9 /hird, those )hom the +resident may be authoriDed by "a) to a oint9 &ourth, officers "o)er in ran4 )hose a ointments the %on$ress may by "a) vest in the +resident a"one. /he first $rou of officers is c"ear"y a ointed )ith the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments. ' ointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the nomination is confirmed by the %ommission on ' ointments, the +resident a oints. /he second, third and fourth $rou s of officers are the resent bone of contention. (y fo""o)in$ the acce ted ru"e in constitutiona" and statutory construction that an e- ress enumeration of sub6ects e-c"udes others not enumerated, it )ou"d fo""o) that on"y those a ointments to ositions e- ress"y stated in the first $rou require the consent EconfirmationF of the %ommission on ' ointments. /he osition of %ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustoms Ea bureau headF is not one of those )ithin the first $rou of a ointments )here the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments is required. 's a matter of fact, as a"ready ointed out, )hi"e the 193> %onstitution inc"udes Aheads of bureausB amon$ those officers )hose a ointments need the consent of

THE COURTS RULING: ,.O. =o 3* is va"id. :t is in accordance )ith the doctrine of se aration of o)ers. /he Su reme %ourt em hasiDed that the "e$is"ature creates the ub"ic office but it has nothin$ to do )ith desi$natin$ the ersons to fi"" the office. ' ointin$ ersons to a ub"ic office is essentia""y e-ecutive. /he =%% is a $overnment o)ned and contro""ed cor oration. :t )as created by %on$ress. /o e-tend the o)er of %on$ress into a""o)in$ it, throu$h the Senate +resident and the 2ouse S ea4er, to a oint members of the =%% is a"ready an invasion of e-ecutive o)ers. /he Su reme %ourt ho)ever notes that indeed there are e-ce tions to this ru"e )here the "e$is"ature may a oint ersons to fi"" ub"ic office. Such e-ce tion can be found in the a ointment by the "e$is"ature of ersons to fi"" offices )ithin the "e$is"ative branch P this e-ce tion is a""o)ab"e because it does not )ea4en the e-ecutive branch. ,very other consideration to one side, this remains certainS/he con$ress of the

THE COURTS RULING: S%&'()* 16, A+'(&,% VII of the 198* %onstitution rovides 3 A/he +resident sha"" nominate and, )ith the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments, a oint the heads of the e-ecutive de artments, ambassadors, other ub"ic ministers and consu"s, or officers of the armed forces from the ran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain, and other officers )hose a ointments are vested in him in this %onstitution. 2e sha"" a"so a oint a"" other officers of the 8overnment )hose a ointments are not other)ise rovided for by "a), and those )hom he may be authoriDed by "a) to a oint. /he %on$ress may, by "a), vest the a ointment of other officers "o)er in ran4 in the +resident a"one, in the courts, or in the heads of the de artments, a$encies, commissions or boards. /he +resident sha"" have the o)er to ma4e a ointments durin$ the recess of the %on$ress, )hether vo"untary or com u"sory, but such a ointments sha"" be effective on"y unti" disa rova" by the %ommission on ' ointments or unti" the ne-t ad6ournment of the %on$ress.

TITLE:

SARMIENTO VS. MISON

CITATION: 1!6 SCRA !49 G.R. NO. 79974 DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1987 FACTS: :n this etition for rohibition, the etitioners, )ho are ta- ayers, "a)yers, members of the :nte$rated (ar of the +hi"i ines and rofessors of %onstitutiona" Ka), see4 to en6oin the res ondent Sa"vador Mison from erformin$ the functions of the Office of %ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustoms and the res ondent 8ui""ermo %ara$ue, as Secretary of the Ce artment of

the %ommission on ' ointments, the 198* %onstitution on the other hand, de"iberate"y e-c"uded the osition of Aheads of bureausB from a ointments that need the consent EconfirmationF of the %ommission on ' ointments. %onsequent"y, )e ru"e that the +resident of the +hi"i ines acted )ithin her constitutiona" authority and o)er in a ointin$ res ondent Sa"vador Mison, %ommissioner of the (ureau of %ustoms, )ithout submittin$ his nomination to the %ommission on ' ointments for confirmation. 2e is thus entit"ed to e-ercise the fu"" authority and functions of the office and to receive a"" the sa"aries and emo"uments ertainin$ thereto. TITLE: CONCEPTION- BAUTISTA VS. SALONGA CITATION: 17" SCRA 160 G.R. NO. 86439 DATE: A$RIL 13, 1989 FACTS: On 'u$ust .*, 198*, +resident %ory 'quino a ointed etitioner (autista as ermanent %hairman of the %ommission on 2uman @i$hts E%2@F. (autista too4 her oath of office on Cecember .., 1988 to %hief Justice Marce"o &ernan and immediate"y acted as such. On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of the %ommission on ' ointments E%o'F )rote a "etter to (autista requestin$ for her resence a"on$ )ith severa" documents at the office of %o' on January 19. (autista refused to be "aced under %o'!s revie) hence this etition fi"ed )ith the Su reme %ourt. 1hi"e )aitin$ for the ro$ress of the case, +resident 'quino a ointed 2esiquio @. Ma""i""in as ;'ctin$ %hairman of the %ommission on 2uman @i$hts; but he )as not ab"e to sit in his a ointive

office because of (autista!s refusa" to surrender her ost. Ma"i"in invo4ed ,O 1033' )hich rovides that the tenure of the %hairman and the %ommissioners of the %2@ shou"d be at the "easure of the +resident thus statin$ that (autista sha"" be subsequent"y removed as )e"". ISSUE: 1hether or not (autista5s a ointment is sub6ect to %o'5s confirmation7

THE COURTS RULING: Since the osition of %hairman of the %2@ is not amon$ the ositions mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 10, 'rt. * of the 198* %onstitution, a ointments to )hich are to be made )ith the confirmation of the %o' it fo""o)s that the a ointment by the +resident of the %hairman of the %2@ is to be made )ithout the revie) or artici ation of the %o'. /o be more recise, the a ointment of the %hairman and Members of the %2@ is not s ecifica""y rovided for in the %onstitution itse"f, un"i4e the %hairmen and Members of the %S%, the %o, and the %O', )hose a ointments are e- ress"y vested by the %onstitution in the +resident )ith the consent of the %o'. /he +resident a oints the %hairman and Members of the %2@ ursuant to the second sentence in Sec 10, 'rt. *, that is, )ithout the confirmation of the %o' because they are amon$ the officers of $overnment A)hom he Ethe +residentF may be authoriDed by "a) to a oint.B 'nd Sec .EcF, ,O 103 authoriDes the +resident to a oint the %hairman and Members of the %2@. (ecause of the fact that the resident submitted to the %o' on 1< Jan 1989 the a ointment of (autista, the %o' ar$ued that the resident thou$h she has the so"e rero$ative to ma4e %2@

a ointments may from time to time as4 confirmation )ith the %o'. /his is untenab"e accordin$ to the S%. /he %onstitution has b"oc4ed off certain a ointments for the +resident to ma4e )ith the artici ation of the %ommission on ' ointments, so a"so has the %onstitution mandated that the +resident can confer no o)er of artici ation in the %ommission on ' ointments over other a ointments e-c"usive"y reserved for her by the %onstitution. /he e-ercise of o"itica" o tions that finds no su ort in the %onstitution cannot be sustained. &urther, even if the resident may vo"untari"y submit to the commission on a ointments an a ointment that under the constitution so"e"y be"on$s to her, sti"", there )as no vacancy to )hich an a ointment cou"d be made on 1< January 1989. /here can be no ad interim a ointments in the %2@ for the a ointment thereto is not sub6ect to %o'5s confirmation. ' ointments to the %2@ is a")ays ermanent in nature. /he rovisions of ,O 1033' is unconstitutiona" and cannot be invo4ed by Ma""i""in. /he %hairman and the %ommissioners of the %2@ cannot be removed at the "easure of the resident for it is constitutiona""y $uaranteed that they must have a term of office. TITLE: RUFINO VS. ENDRIGA

,ndri$a 8rou . ,strada a ointed seven ne) trustees to the %%+ (oard for a term of four years to re "ace the ,ndri$a $rou as )e"" as t)o other incumbent trustees. /he @ufino $rou too4 their oaths of office and assumed the erformance of their duties. /he ,ndri$a $rou fi"ed a etition for quo )arranto questionin$ ,strada!s a ointment of seven ne) members to the %%+ (oard. /hey c"aimed that it is on"y )hen the %%+ (oard is entire"y vacant may the +resident of the +hi"i ines fi"" such vacancies, actin$ in consu"tation )ith the ran4in$ officers of the %%+. /he c"ear and cate$orica" "an$ua$e of Section 0EbF of +C 1> states that vacancies in the %%+ (oard sha"" be fi""ed by a ma6ority vote of the remainin$ trustees. Shou"d on"y one trustee survive, the vacancies sha"" be fi""ed by the survivin$ trustee actin$ in consu"tation )ith the ran4in$ officers of the %%+. Shou"d the (oard become entire"y vacant, the vacancies sha"" be fi""ed by the +resident of the +hi"i ines actin$ in consu"tation )ith the same ran4in$ officers of the %%+. /hus, the remainin$ trustees, )hether one or more, e"ect their fe""o) trustees for a fi-ed four3year term. On the other hand, Section 0EcF of +C 1> does not a""o) trustees to ree"ect fe""o) trustees for more than t)o consecutive terms. /he ,ndri$a $rou asserted that )hen former +resident ,strada a ointed the @ufino $rou , on"y one seat )as vacant due to the e- iration of MaQosa!s term. /he %%+ (oard then had 10 incumbent trustees. /hey maintained that under the %%+ %harter, the trustees! fi-ed four3year term cou"d on"y be terminated ;by reason of resi$nation, inca acity, death, or other cause.; +residentia" action )as neither necessary nor 6ustified since the %%+ (oard then sti"" had 10 incumbent trustees )ho had the statutory o)er to fi"" by e"ection any vacancy in the (oard.

CITATION: G.R. NO. 139!!4 DATE: 1UL# "1, "006 FACTS: +residentia" Cecree =o. 1> E+C 1>F created the %u"tura" %enter of the +hi"i ines E%%+F for the rimary ur ose of ro a$atin$ arts and cu"ture in the +hi"i ines. +C 1> increased the members of %%+!s (oard from seven to nine trustees. Kater, ,-ecutive Order =o. 10>8, increased further the trustees to 11. ,ventua""y, durin$ the term of @amos, the %%+ (oard inc"uded the

/he ,ndri$a $rou refused to acce t that the %%+ )as under the su ervision and contro" of the +resident. /he ,ndri$a $rou cited Section 3 of +C 1>, )hich states that the %%+ ;sha"" en6oy autonomy of o"icy and o eration.; @ufino 8rou G that the "a) cou"d on"y de"e$ate to the %%+ (oard the o)er to a oint officers "o)er in ran4 than the trustees of the (oard. Section 0EbF of +C 1> authoriDin$ the %%+ trustees to e"ect their fe""o) trustees shou"d be dec"ared unconstitutiona" bein$ re u$nant to Section 10, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution a""o)in$ the a ointment on"y of ;officers "o)er in ran4; than the a ointin$ o)er. %' entit"ed the ,ndri$a $rou office.

other officers )hose a ointments are vested in him in this %onstitution. 2e sha"" a"so a oint a"" other officers of the 8overnment )hose a ointments are not other)ise rovided for by "a), and those )hom he may be authoriDed by "a) to a oint. /he %on$ress may, by "a), vest the a ointment of other officers "o)er in ran4 in the +resident a"one, in the courts, or in the heads of de artments, a$encies, commissions, or board. /he +resident sha"" have the o)er to ma4e a ointments durin$ the recess of the %on$ress, )hether vo"untary or com u"sory, but such a ointments sha"" be effective on"y unti" disa rova" by the %ommission on ' ointments or unti" the ne-t ad6ournment of the %on$ress.

)hose a ointments are not other)ise rovided by "a). %onsent not required a oints the third $rou of officers if the "a) is si"ent on )ho is the a ointin$ o)er, or if the "a) authoriDin$ the head of a de artment, a$ency, commission, or board to a oint is dec"ared unconstitutiona". /hus, if Section 0EbF and EcF of +C 1> is found unconstitutiona", the +resident sha"" a oint the trustees of the %%+ (oard because the trustees fa"" under the third $rou of officers. /here is a fourth $rou of "o)er3ran4ed officers )hose a ointments %on$ress may by "a) vest in the heads of de artments, a$encies, commissions, or boards.

erforms e-ecutive, and not "e$is"ative, 6udicia", or quasi36udicia" functions.

ISSUES: 1hether or not there is an inva"id de"e$ation of the +resident!s a ointin$ o)er under the %onstitution7 1hether or not it effective"y de rives the +resident of his constitutiona" o)er of contro" and su ervision over the %%+7

/he o)er to a oint is the rero$ative of the +resident, e-ce t in those instances )hen the %onstitution rovides other)ise. #sur ation of this fundamenta""y ,-ecutive o)er by the Ke$is"ative and Judicia" branches vio"ates the system of se aration of o)ers that inheres in our democratic re ub"ican $overnment. #nder Section 10, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution, the +resident a oints three $rou s of officers. 1. heads of the ,-ecutive de artments, ambassadors, other ub"ic ministers and consu"s, officers of the armed forces from the ran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain, and other officers )hose a ointments are vested in the +resident by the %onstitution )ith the %ommission of ' ointment5s consent. those )hom the +resident may be authoriDed by "a) to a oint. %onsent not required. a"" other officers of the 8overnment

THE COURTS RULING: /he source of the +resident!s o)er to a oint, as )e"" as the Ke$is"ature!s authority to de"e$ate the o)er to a oint, is found in Section 10, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution )hich rovides 3 the +resident sha"" nominate and, )ith the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments, a oint the heads of the e-ecutive de artments, ambassadors, other ub"ic ministers and consu"s, or officers of the armed forces from the ran4 of co"one" or nava" ca tain, and

..

3.

/he residentia" o)er of contro" over the ,-ecutive branch of $overnment e-tends to a"" e-ecutive em "oyees from the Ce artment Secretary to the "o)"iest c"er4.3> /his constitutiona" o)er of the +resident is se"f3e-ecutin$ and does not require any im "ementin$ "a). %on$ress cannot "imit or curtai" the +resident!s o)er of contro" over the ,-ecutive branch. /he %%+ fa""s under the ,-ecutive branch. Since the +resident e-ercises contro" over ;a"" the e-ecutive de artments, bureaus, and offices,; the +resident necessari"y e-ercises contro" over the %%+ )hich is an office in the ,-ecutive branch. :n mandatin$ that the +resident ;sha"" have contro" of all e.ecutive . . . offices ,; Section 1*, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution does not e-em t any e-ecutive office S one erformin$ e-ecutive functions outside of the inde endent constitutiona" bodies S from the +resident!s o)er of contro". /here is no dis ute that the %%+

/he Ke$is"ature cannot va"id"y enact a "a) that uts a $overnment office in the ,-ecutive branch outside the contro" of the +resident in the $uise of insu"atin$ that office from o"itics or ma4in$ it inde endent. :f the office is art of the ,-ecutive branch, it must remain sub6ect to the contro" of the +resident. Other)ise, the Ke$is"ature can de rive the +resident of his constitutiona" o)er of contro" over ;a"" the e-ecutive - - offices.; :f the Ke$is"ature can do this )ith the ,-ecutive branch, then the Ke$is"ature can a"so dea" a simi"ar b"o) to the Judicia" branch by enactin$ a "a) uttin$ decisions of certain "o)er courts beyond the revie) o)er of the Su reme %ourt. /his )i"" destroy the system of chec4s and ba"ances fine"y structured in the 198* %onstitution amon$ the ,-ecutive, Ke$is"ative, and Judicia" branches.

Section 0EbF and EcF of +C 1>, )hich authoriDes the trustees of the %%+ (oard to fi"" vacancies in the (oard, runs afou" )ith the +resident!s o)er of contro" under Section 1*, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution. /he intent of Section 0EbF and EcF of +C 1> is to insu"ate the %%+ from o"itica" inf"uence and ressure, s ecifica""y from the +resident. << Section 0EbF and EcF of +C 1> ma4es the %%+ a se"f3 er etuatin$ entity, virtua""y outside the contro" of the +resident. Such a ub"ic office or board cannot "e$a""y e-ist under the 198* %onstitution.

TITLE:

AYTONA VS. CASTILLO

CITATION: 43 SCRA 1 G.R. NO. L 19313 DATE: 1ANUAR# 19, 196" FACTS: On Cecember .9, 1901, %ar"os +. 8arcia, )ho )as sti"" +resident that time, made "ast minute a ointments )hi"e the %ommission on ' ointments )as not in session. Said "ast minute a ointment inc"uded Cominador @. 'ytona, )ho )as a ointed as ad interim 8overnor of %entra" (an4. /he "atter too4 oath on the same day. 't noon on Cecember 30, 1901, +resident3e"ect Ciosdado Maca a$a" assumed office. 2e issued 'dministrative Order =o. . on Cecember 31, 1901 reca""in$, )ithdra)in$ and cance"in$ a"" ad interim a ointments made by +resident 8arcia after Cecember 13, 1901, )hich )as the date )hen Maca a$a" )as roc"aimed +resident by the %on$ress. 2e then a ointed 'ndres V. %asti""o as ad interim 8overnor of the %entra" (an4 and the "atter qua"ified immediate"y. On January ., 190., both e-ercised the o)ers of their office. 2o)ever, 'ytona )as revented from ho"din$ office the fo""o)in$ day and thus instituted a quo )arranto roceedin$, cha""en$in$ %asti""o5s ri$ht to e-ercise the o)ers of the 8overnor of the %entra" (an4. 'ytona c"aims that he )as va"id"y a ointed and had qua"ified for the ost, therefore ma4in$ %asti""o5s a ointment void. %asti""o then contended that 'ytona5s a ointment had a"ready been revo4ed by 'dministrative Order =o. . issued by +resident Maca a$a". ISSUE: 1hether or not 'ytona shou"d remain in his ost7

2ad the a ointment of 'ytona been done in $ood faith then he )ou"d have the ri$ht to continue office. 2ere, even thou$h 'ytona is qua"ified to remain in his ost as he is com etent enou$h, his a ointment can neverthe"ess be revo4ed by the resident. 8arcia5s a ointments are hurried maneuvers to subvert the u comin$ administration and is set to obstruct the o"icies of the ne-t resident. 's a $enera" ru"e, once a erson is qua"ified his a ointment shou"d not be revo4ed but in here it may be since his a ointment )as $rounded on bad faith, immora"ity and im ro riety. :n ub"ic service, it is not on"y "e$a"ity that is considered but a"so 6ustice, fairness and ri$hteousness. =orma""y, )hen the +resident ma4es a ointments the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments, he has benefit of their advice. 1hen he ma4es ad interim a ointments, he e-ercises a s ecia" rero$ative and is bound to be rudent to insure a rova" of his se"ection either revious consu"tation )ith the members of the %ommission or by thereafter e- "ainin$ to them the reason such se"ection. 1here, ho)ever, as in this case, the %ommission on ' ointments that )i"" consider the a ointees is different from that e-istin$ at the time of the a ointment. and )here the names are to be submitted by successor, )ho may not )ho""y a rove of the se"ections, the +resident shou"d be doub"y carefu" in e-tendin$ such a ointments. =o), it is hard to be"ieve that in si$nin$ 3>0 a ointments in one ni$ht, +resident 8arcia e-ercised such ;doub"e care; )hich )as required and e- ected of him9 and therefore, there seems to be force to the contention that these a ointments fa"" beyond the intent and s irit of the constitutiona" rovision $rantin$ to the ,-ecutive authority to issue ad interim a ointments.

#nder the circumstances above described, )hat )ith the se aration of o)ers, this %ourt reso"ves that it must dec"ine to disre$ard the +residentia" 'dministrative Order =o. ., cance""in$ such ;midni$ht; or ;"ast3minute; a ointments. Of course, the %ourt is a)are of many recedents to the effect that once an a ointment has been issued, it cannot be reconsidered, s ecia""y )here the a ointee has qua"ified. (ut none of them refer to mass ad interim a ointments Ethree3hundred and fiftyF, issued in the "ast hours of an out$oin$ %hief ,-ecutive, in a settin$ simi"ar to that out"ined herein. On the other hand, the authorities admit of e-ce tiona" circumstances 6ustifyin$ revocation 3 and if any circumstances 6ustify revocation, those described herein shou"d fit the e-ce tion. :ncidenta""y, it shou"d be stated that the under"yin$ reason for denyin$ the o)er to revo4e after the a ointee has qua"ified is the "atter!s equitab"e ri$hts. Iet it is doubtfu" if such equity mi$ht be successfu""y set u in the resent situation, considerin$ the rush conditiona" a ointments, hurried maneuvers and other ha enin$s detractin$ from that de$ree of $ood faith, mora"ity and ro riety )hich form the basic foundation of c"aims to equitab"e re"ief. /he a ointees, it mi$ht be ar$ued, )ittin$"y or un)ittin$"y coo erated )ith the strata$em to beat the dead"ine, )hatever the resu"tant consequences to the di$nity and efficiency of the ub"ic service. =eed"ess to say, there are instances )herein not on"y strict "e$a"ity, but a"so fairness, 6ustice and ri$hteousness shou"d be ta4en into account. /he %ourt e-ercisin$ its 6ud$ment and discretion in the matter dismissed the action, )ithout costs.

TITLE:

JORGE VS. MAYOR

CITATION: 10 SCRA 331 G.R. NO. L "1776 DATE: FEBRUAR# "8, 1964 FACTS: +etition for mandamus and 8uo warranto fi"ed direct"y in this %ourt to have etitioner dec"ared as the so"e "e$a""y a ointed and qua"ified Cirector of Kands, and to require res ondent to turn over said office to the etitioner as )e"" as to desist from ho"din$ himse"f out as ;'ctin$ Cirector, (ureau of Kands;. :t is undis uted that etitioner, =icanor 8. Jor$e, is a career officia" in the (ureau of Kands. 2e started )or4in$ there as a Junior %om uter in the course of 38 years service, from &ebruary 1, 19.. to October 31, 1900, and attained the osition of 'ctin$ Cirector, throu$h re$u"ar and successive romotions, in accordance )ith civi" service ru"es. On June 1*, 1901, he )as desi$nated 'ctin$ Cirector of the same (ureau, and on Cecember 13, 1901 )as a ointed by +resident %ar"os 8arcia ad interim Cirector. 2e qua"ified by ta4in$ the oath of office on the .3rd Cecember of 1901. 2is a ointment )as on Cecember .0, 1901, transmitted to the %ommission on ' ointments, and on May 1<, 190., etitioner!s ad interim a ointment as Cirector of Kands )as confirmed by the %ommission. +etitioner dischar$ed the duties as Cirector unti" on =ovember 1<, 190. he received a "etter from (en6amin 8oDon, then Secretary of '$ricu"ture and =atura" @esources of the Maca a$a" administration, informin$ him that ursuant to a "etter from the 'ssistant ,-ecutive Secretary (erna", served on etitioner on =ovember 13, his a ointment )as amon$ those revo4ed by 'dministrative Order =o. . of

THE COURTS RULING:

+resident Ciosdado Maca a$a"9 that the osition of Cirector of Kands )as considered vacant9 and that etitioner Jor$e )as designated 'ctin$ Cirector of Kands, effective =ovember 13, 190.. # on "earnin$ that res ondent Mayor, an outsider, had been desi$nate by the +resident to be 'ctin$ Cirector of Kands Jor$e rotested Ein a "etter of =ovember 10, 190.F to the Secretary of '$ricu"ture informin$ the "atter that he )ou"d stand on his ri$hts, and issued office circu"ars c"aimin$ to be the "e$a""y a ointed Cirector of Kands. &ina""y, on Se tember ., 1903, he instituted the resent roceedin$s. /he ans)er of res ondent "eads that the ad interim a ointment of etitioner and its confirmation )ere inva"id havin$ been du"y revo4ed by +resident Maca a$a" by 'dministrative Order =o. . dated Cecember 31, 19019 that etitioner vo"untari"y re"inquished his osition and acce ted his desi$nation as 'ctin$ Cirector, issuin$ ress statements to said effect, and vo"untari"y accom anyin$ and introducin$ res ondent to meet officia"s of the (ureau as the ne) actin$ Cirector of Kands. ISSUE: 1hether or not 'dministrative Order =o. . of +resident Maca a$a" o erated as a va"id revocation of etitioner!s ad interim a ointment7

on"y in mid3=ovember of 190. that the attem t )as actua""y made to demote him and a oint a ran4 outsider in his "ace in the erson of res ondent Mayor. 's to the a""e$ed vo"untary acquiescence and re"inquishment by etitioner of his osition as de 6ure Cirector of Kands, the evidence is that he did rotect a$ainst his demotion in "etters to the Secretary of '$ricu"ture and in office circu"ars. /hat he did not immediate"y ado t a hosti"e attitude to)ards the authorities, and the res ondent herein )as mere"y evidence of that courtesy and ;de"icadeDa; to be e- ected of a man in a hi$h osition )ho does not )ish to obstruct the functions of the office, and is in no )ay incom atib"e )ith his determination to rotect his ri$ht. :t must a"so be remembered that the recedent! case of the former %hairman of the =ationa" Science (oard, sus ended indefinite"y on char$es that )ere subsequent"y found to be fa"se, did not encoura$e reci itate action, and )as a reminder of the un "easant consequences of defyin$ the administration. 't any rate, ;abandonment of an office by reason of acce tance of another, in order to be effective and bindin$, shou"d s rin$ from and be accom anied by de"iberation and freedom of choice, either to 4ee the o"d office or renounce it for another; E/eves vs. Sindion$ 81 +hi". 0>8F, and the record is unconvincin$ that the a""e$ed acts of acquiescence, most"y equivoca" in character, )ere free"y and vo"untari"y accom "ished. /he )rits a "ied for )ere $ranted, the etitioner =icanor 8. Jor$e is dec"ared to be the du"y a ointed, confirmed, and qua"ified Cirector of Kands, the res ondent, Jovencio H. Mayor, )as required to turn over said office to the etitioner and to desist from ho"din$ se"f out as ;'ctin$ Cirector of Kands;

TITLE:

DE CASTRO VS. JBC

CITATION: G.R. NO. 19100" DATE: MARCH 17, "010 FACTS: /he com u"sory retirement of %hief Justice @eynato S. +uno by May 1*, .010 occurs 6ust days after the comin$ residentia" e"ections on May 10, .010. /hese cases trace their $enesis to the controversy that has arisen from the forthcomin$ com u"sory retirement of %hief Justice +uno on May 1*, .010, or seven days after the residentia" e"ection. #nder Section <E1F, in re"ation to Section 9, 'rtic"e V:::, that Avacancy sha"" be fi""ed )ithin ninety days from the occurrence thereofB from a A"ist of at "east three nominees re ared by the Judicia" and (ar %ounci" for every vacancy.B '"so considerin$ that Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: E,-ecutive Ce artmentF of the %onstitution rohibits the +resident or 'ctin$ +resident from ma4in$ a ointments )ithin t)o months immediate"y before the ne-t residentia" e"ections and u to the end of his term, e-ce t tem orary a ointments to e-ecutive ositions )hen continued vacancies therein )i"" re6udice ub"ic service or endan$er ub"ic safety. /he J(%, in its en banc meetin$ of January 18, .010, unanimous"y a$reed to start the rocess of fi""in$ u the osition of %hief Justice. %onformab"y )ith its e-istin$ ractice, the J(% Aautomatica""y consideredB for

the osition of %hief Justice the five most senior of the 'ssociate Justices of the %ourt, name"yG 'ssociate Justice 'ntonio /. %ar io9 'ssociate Justice @enato %. %orona9 'ssociate Justice %onchita %ar io Mora"es9 'ssociate Justice +resbitero J. Ve"asco, Jr.9 and 'ssociate Justice 'ntonio ,duardo (. =achura. 2o)ever, the "ast t)o dec"ined their nomination throu$h "etters dated January 18, .010 and January .>, .010, res ective"y. /he OS8 contends that the incumbent +resident may a oint the ne-t %hief Justice, because the rohibition under Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution does not a "y to a ointments in the Su reme %ourt. :t ar$ues that any vacancy in the Su reme %ourt must be fi""ed )ithin 90 days from its occurrence, ursuant to Section <E1F, 'rtic"e V::: of the %onstitution9 that had the framers intended the rohibition to a "y to Su reme %ourt a ointments, they cou"d have easi"y e- ress"y stated so in the %onstitution, )hich e- "ains )hy the rohibition found in 'rtic"e V:: E,-ecutive Ce artmentF )as not )ritten in 'rtic"e V::: EJudicia" Ce artmentF9 and that the framers a"so incor orated in 'rtic"e V::: am "e restrictions or "imitations on the +resident5s o)er to a oint members of the Su reme %ourt to ensure its inde endence from A o"itica" vicissitudesB and its Ainsu"ation from o"itica" ressures,B such as strin$ent qua"ifications for the ositions, the estab"ishment of the J(%, the s ecified eriod )ithin )hich the +resident sha"" a oint a Su reme %ourt Justice. ' art of the question to be revie)ed by the %ourt is )hether the J(% ro er"y initiated the rocess, there bein$ an insistence from some of the o ositors3 intervenors that the J(% cou"d on"y do so once the vacancy has occurred Ethat is, after May 1*, .010F. 'nother art is, of course, )hether the J(% may resume its rocess unti" the short "ist is re ared, in vie) of the rovision of Section <E1F, 'rtic"e V:::, )hich unqua"ified"y requires

THE COURTS RULING: :n common )ith the 8i""era a ointment sustained by this %ourt "ess than a month a$o, Jor$e!s a ointment is featured by a reco$nition of his tenure by the Maca a$a" administration itse"f, since he )as a""o)ed to ho"d and dischar$e undisturbed his duties as de 6ure Cirector of Kands for near"y e"even months9 it )as

the +resident to a oint one from the short "ist to fi"" the vacancy in the Su reme %ourt Ebe it the %hief Justice or an 'ssociate JusticeF )ithin 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. ISSUE: 1hether or not the incumbent +resident can a oint the successor of %hief Justice +uno u on his retirement7

THE COURTS RULING: +rohibition under Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: does not a "y to a ointments to fi"" a vacancy in the Su reme %ourt or to other a ointments to the Judiciary. /)o constitutiona" rovisions are seemin$"y in conf"ict. /he first, S%&'()* 1!, A+'(&,% VII E,-ecutive Ce artmentF, rovidesG Section 1>. /)o months immediate"y before the ne-t residentia" e"ections and u to the end of his term, a +resident or 'ctin$ +resident sha"" not ma4e a ointments, e-ce t tem orary a ointments to e-ecutive ositions )hen continued vacancies therein )i"" re6udice ub"ic service or endan$er ub"ic safety. /he other, S%&'()* 4 213, A+'(&,% VIII EJudicia" Ce artmentF, statesG Section <. E1F. /he Su reme %ourt sha"" be com osed of a %hief Justice and fourteen 'ssociate Justices. :t may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. 'ny vacancy sha"" be fi""ed )ithin ninety days from the occurrence thereof. 2ad the framers intended to e-tend the rohibition contained in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: to the a ointment of Members of the Su reme %ourt, they cou"d have e- "icit"y done so. /hey cou"d

not have i$nored the meticu"ous orderin$ of the rovisions. /hey )ou"d have easi"y and sure"y )ritten the rohibition made e- "icit in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: as bein$ equa""y a "icab"e to the a ointment of Members of the Su reme %ourt in 'rtic"e V::: itse"f, most "i4e"y in Section < E1F, 'rtic"e V:::. /hat such s ecification )as not done on"y revea"s that the rohibition a$ainst the +resident or 'ctin$ +resident ma4in$ a ointments )ithin t)o months before the ne-t residentia" e"ections and u to the end of the +resident5s or 'ctin$ +resident5s term does not refer to the Members of the Su reme %ourt. 2ad the framers intended to e-tend the rohibition contained in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: to the a ointment of Members of the Su reme %ourt, they cou"d have e- "icit"y done so. /hey cou"d not have i$nored the meticu"ous orderin$ of the rovisions. /hey )ou"d have easi"y and sure"y )ritten the rohibition made e- "icit in Section 1>, 'rtic"e V:: as bein$ equa""y a "icab"e to the a ointment of Members of the Su reme %ourt in 'rtic"e V::: itse"f, most "i4e"y in Section < E1F, 'rtic"e V:::. /hat such s ecification )as not done on"y revea"s that the rohibition a$ainst the +resident or 'ctin$ +resident ma4in$ a ointments )ithin t)o months before the ne-t residentia" e"ections and u to the end of the +resident5s or 'ctin$ +resident5s term does not refer to the Members of the Su reme %ourt. Section 1<, Section 1>, and Section 10 are obvious"y of the same character, in that they affect the o)er of the +resident to a oint. /he fact that Section 1< and Section 10 refer on"y to a ointments )ithin the ,-ecutive Ce artment renders conc"usive that Section 1> a"so a "ies on"y to the ,-ecutive Ce artment. /his conc"usion is consistent )ith the ru"e that every art of the statute must be inter reted )ith reference to the conte-t, i.e. that every art must be considered to$ether )ith

the other arts, and 4e t subservient to the $enera" intent of the )ho"e enactment. :t is absurd to assume that the framers de"iberate"y situated Section 1> bet)een Section 1< and Section 10, if they intended Section 1> to cover a"" 4inds of residentia" a ointments. :f that )as their intention in res ect of a ointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if on"y to be c"ear, )ou"d have easi"y and sure"y inserted a simi"ar rohibition in 'rtic"e V:::, most "i4e"y )ithin Section < E1F thereof. TITLE: GUEVARA VS. INOCENTES

CITATION: 16 SCRA 38 G.R. NO. L "!!77 DATE: MARCH 1!, 1966 FACTS: /he etitioner, Onofre 8uevara )as e-tended an ad interim a ointment as #ndersecretary of Kabor by the former ,-ecutive on =ovember 18, 190>. /oo4 his oath of office on =ovember .> th same year. /he incumbent ,-ecutive issued Memorandum %ircu"ar =o. 8 dated January .3, 1900 dec"arin$ that a"" ad interim a ointments made by the former ,-ecutive "a sed )ith the ad6ournment of the s ecia" session of %on$ress at about midni$ht of January .., 1900. /he res ondent, @aou" :nocentes )as e-tended an ad interim a ointment for the same osition by the incumbent ,-ecutive on January .3, 1900. 8uevara fi"ed before the court an instant etition for Huo 1arranto see4in$ to be dec"ared erson "e$a""y entit"ed to the said Officer of the #ndersecretary of Kabor under 'rt. V:: Sec. 10 E<F of the 193> %onstitution )hich states that3 /he president shall have the power to ma)e appointments during the recess of the Congress' but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on ppointments or until the ne.t ad9ournment of Congress.

Since there )as no %ommission on ' ointments or$aniDed durin$ the s ecia" session )hich commenced on January 1*, 1900, the res ondent contended that the etitioner5s ad interim a ointment as )e"" as other made under simi"ar conditions must have "a sed )hen the %on$ress ad6ourned its "ast s ecia" session. (ut the etitioner stated that E1F the s ecific rovision in the %onstitution )hich states thatG Aunti" the ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ressB means ad6ournment of a re$u"ar session of %on$ress and not by a s ecia" session and E.F on"y the Senate ad6ourned sine die at midni$ht of January .., 1900 and the 2ouse of the @e resentative mere"y Tsus ended5 its session and to be resumed on January .<, 1900 at 10G00 'M. /he etitioner therefore conc"udes that %on$ress has been in continuous session )ithout interru tion since January 1*. ISSUES: 1hether or not, the etitioner5s contention re$ardin$ Athe ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ress s ecifica""y rovides for re$u"ar session on"y7 1hether or not, the etitioner5s contention that %on$ress is sti"" in continuous session7

THE COURTS RULING: /he hrase Aunti" the ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ressB does not ma4e any reference to s ecific session of %on$ress, )hether re$u"ar or s ecia". (ut a )e""3 4no) Katin ma-im is statutory construction stated that T)hen the "a) does not distin$uish )e shou"d not distin$uish. #bi "e- non distin$uit nec nos distin$uere debemus. :t is safe to conc"ude that the authors of the 193>

%onstitution used the )ord Aad6ournmentB had in mind either re$u"ar or s ecia" and not sim "y the re$u"ar one as the etitioner contended. /he mere fact that the Senate ad6ourned sine die at midni$ht of January .., 1900, the 2ouse of the @e resentative is on"y a art of the %on$ress and not the %on$ress itse"f. So "o$ica""y, the ad6ournment of one of its 2ouses is considered ad6ournment of the %on$ress as a )ho"e. 'nd the etitioner5s ad interim a ointment must have been "a sed on January .., 1900 u on ad6ournment of the Senate. :t is ho ed that no) and hereafter such e-cess in the e-ercise of o)er shou"d be obviated to avoid confusion, uncertainty, embarrassment and chaos )hich may cause disru tion in the norma" function of $overnment to the re6udice of ub"ic interest. :t is time that such e-cess be sto ed in the interest of the ub"ic )ea". 1herefore, etition )as denied TITLE: MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO

+resident 'rroyo rene)ed the ad interim a ointments of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason to the same ositions and for the same term of seven years. /hey too4 their oaths of office for a second time. /he Office of the +resident transmitted their a ointments to the %ommission on ' ointments for confirmation. %on$ress ad6ourned before the %ommission on ' ointments cou"d act on their a ointments. :n his ca acity as %ome"ec %hair, (eni ayo issued a Memorandum, reassi$nin$ Matiba$ to the from the ,ducation Ce artment to the Ka) Ce artment. Matiba$ sou$ht reconsideration, ar$uin$ that transfer and detai" of em "oyees are rohibited durin$ the e"ection eriod, both by the ,"ection %ode and a %ivi" Service Memorandum. Matiba$ fi"ed an administrative and crimina" case a$ainst (eni ayo. Matiba$ a"so questioned the a ointment and the ri$ht to remain in office of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason, as %hairman and %ommissioners of the %OM,K,%, res ective"y. +etitioner c"aims that the ad interim a ointments of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason vio"ate the constitutiona" rovisions on the inde endence of the %OM,K,%, as )e"" as on the rohibitions on tem orary a ointments and rea ointments of its %hairman and members. +etitioner osits the vie) that an ad interim a ointment can be )ithdra)n or revo4ed by the +resident at her "easure, and can even be disa roved or sim "y by3 assed by the %ommission on ' ointments. &or this reason, etitioner c"aims that an ad interim a ointment is tem orary in character and consequent"y rohibited by the "ast sentence of Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution. /he rationa"e behind etitioner5s theory is that on"y an a ointee )ho is confirmed by the %ommission on ' ointments can $uarantee the inde endence of the %OM,K,%. ' confirmed a ointee is

beyond the inf"uence of the +resident or members of the %ommission on ' ointments since his a ointment can no "on$er be reca""ed or disa roved. +rior to his confirmation, the a ointee is at the mercy of both the a ointin$ and confirmin$ o)ers since his a ointment can be terminated at any time for any cause.

1hether or not the rene)a" of their ad interim a ointments and subsequent assum tion of office to the same ositions vio"ate the rohibition on rea ointment under Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution7

THE COURTS RULING: +etitioner a"so a$ues that assumin$ the first ad interim a ointments and the first assum tion of office by (eni ayo, (orra and /uason are constitutiona", the rene)a" of the their ad interim a ointments and their subsequent assum tion of office to the same ositions vio"ate the rohibition on rea ointment under Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution. +etitioner theoriDes that once an ad interim a ointee is by3 assed by the %ommission on ' ointments, his ad interim a ointment can no "on$er be rene)ed because this )i"" vio"ate Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution )hich rohibits rea ointments. +etitioner asserts that this is articu"ar"y true to ermanent a ointees )ho have assumed office, )hich is the situation of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason if their ad interim a ointments are deemed ermanent in character . ISSUES: U 1hether or not the assum tion of office by (eni ayo, (orra and /uason on the basis of the ad interim a ointments issued by the +resident amounts to a tem orary a ointment rohibited by Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution7 'n ad interim a ointment is a ermanent a ointment because it ta4es effect immediate"y and can no "on$er be )ithdra)n by the +resident once the a ointee has qua"ified into office. /he fact that it is sub6ect to confirmation by the %ommission on ' ointments does not a"ter its ermanent character. /he %onstitution itse"f ma4es an ad interim a ointment ermanent in character by ma4in$ it effective unti" disa roved by the %ommission on ' ointments or unti" the ne-t ad6ournment of %on$ress. /hus, the ad interim a ointment remains effective unti" such disa rova" or ne-t ad6ournment, si$nifyin$ that it can no "on$er be )ithdra)n or revo4ed by the +resident. /he fear that the +resident can )ithdra) or revo4e at any time and for any reason an ad interim a ointment is utter"y )ithout basis. 'n ad interim a ointment that is by3 assed because of "ac4 of time or fai"ure of the %ommission on ' ointments to or$aniDe is another matter. ' by3 assed a ointment is one that has not been fina""y acted u on on the merits by the %ommission on ' ointments at the c"ose of the session of %on$ress. /here is no fina" decision by the %ommission on ' ointments to $ive or )ithho"d its consent to the a ointment as required by the %onstitution. 'bsent such decision, the +resident is free to rene) the ad interim a ointment of a by3 assed a ointee. /hus, a by3 assed a ointment can be considered a$ain if the +resident rene)s the a ointment.

CITATION: G.R. NO. 149036 DATE: A$RIL ", "00" FACTS: +resident 8M' a ointed, ad interim, (eni ayo as %OM,K,% %hairman,3 and (orra< and /uason> as %OM,K,% %ommissioners, each for a term of seven years and a"" e- irin$ on &ebruary ., .008. /hey a"" too4 their oath of office and assumed the ositions. /he Office of the +resident submitted to the %ommission on ' ointments the ad interim a ointments of (eni ayo, (orra and /uason for confirmation.0 2o)ever, the %ommission on ' ointments did not act on said a ointments.

:n short, an ad interim a ointment ceases to be effective u on disa rova" by the %ommission, because the incumbent can not continue ho"din$ office over the ositive ob6ection of the %ommission. :t ceases, a"so, u on ;the ne-t ad6ournment of the %on$ress;, sim "y because the +resident may then issue ne) a ointments 3 not because of im "ied disa rova" of the %ommission deduced from its inaction durin$ the session of %on$ress, for, under the %onstitution, the %ommission may affect adverse"y the interim a ointments on"y by action, never by omission. :f the ad6ournment of %on$ress )ere an im "ied disa rova" of ad interim a ointments made rior thereto, then the +resident cou"d no "on$er a oint those so by3 assed by the %ommission. (ut, the fact is that the +resident may rea oint them, thus c"ear"y indicatin$ that the reason for said termination of the ad interim a ointments is not the disa rova" thereof a""e$ed"y inferred from said omission of the %ommission, but the circumstance that u on said ad6ournment of the %on$ress, the +resident is free to ma4e ad interim a ointments or rea ointments.; /he rohibition on rea ointment in Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution a "ies neither to disa roved nor by3 assed ad interim a ointments. ' disa roved ad interim a ointment cannot be revived by another ad interim a ointment because the disa rova" is fina" under Section 10, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution, and not because a rea ointment is rohibited under Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution. ' by3 assed ad interim a ointment can be revived by a ne) ad interim a ointment because there is no fina" disa rova" under Section 10, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution, and such ne) a ointment )i"" not resu"t in the a ointee servin$ beyond the fi-ed term of seven years.

Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution rovides that ;NtOhe %hairman and the %ommissioners sha"" be a ointed for a term of seven years )ithout rea ointment.; E,m hasis su "iedF /here are four situations )here this rovision )i"" a "y. /he first situation is )here an ad interim a ointee to the %OM,K,%, after confirmation by the %ommission on ' ointments, serves his fu"" seven3year term. Such erson cannot be rea ointed to the %OM,K,%, )hether as a member or as a chairman, because he )i"" then be actua""y servin$ more than seven years. /he second situation is )here the a ointee, after confirmation, serves a art of his term and then resi$ns before his seven3year term of office ends. Such erson cannot be rea ointed, )hether as a member or as a chair, to a vacancy arisin$ from retirement because a rea ointment )i"" resu"t in the a ointee a"so servin$ more than seven years. /he third situation is )here the a ointee is confirmed to serve the une- ired term of someone )ho died or resi$ned, and the a ointee com "etes the une- ired term. Such erson cannot be rea ointed, )hether as a member or chair, to a vacancy arisin$ from retirement because a rea ointment )i"" resu"t in the a ointee a"so servin$ more than seven years. /he fourth situation is )here the a ointee has revious"y served a term of "ess than seven years, and a vacancy arises from death or resi$nation.

/his rovision refers to the first a ointees under the %onstitution )hose terms of office are "ess than seven years, but are barred from ever bein$ rea ointed under any situation. =ot one of these four situations a "ies to the case of (eni ayo, (orra or /uason. /o forec"ose this inter retation, the hrase ;)ithout rea ointment; a ears t)ice in Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the resent %onstitution. /he first hrase rohibits rea ointment of any erson revious"y a ointed for a term of seven years. /he second hrase rohibits rea ointment of any erson revious"y a ointed for a term of five or three years ursuant to the first set of a ointees under the %onstitution. :n either case, it does not matter if the erson revious"y a ointed com "etes his term of office for the intention is to rohibit any rea ointment of any 4ind. 2o)ever, an ad interim a ointment that has "a sed by inaction of the %ommission on ' ointments does not constitute a term of office. /he eriod from the time the ad interim a ointment is made to the time it "a ses is neither a fi-ed term nor an une- ired term. /o ho"d other)ise )ou"d mean that the +resident by his uni"atera" action cou"d start and com "ete the runnin$ of a term of office in the %OM,K,% )ithout the consent of the %ommission on ' ointments. /his inter retation renders inuti"e the confirmin$ o)er of the %ommission on ' ointments. /he hrase ;)ithout rea ointment; a "ies on"y to one )ho has been a ointed by the +resident and confirmed by the %ommission on ' ointments, )hether or not such erson com "etes his term of office. /here must be a confirmation by the %ommission on ' ointments of the revious a ointment before the rohibition on rea ointment can a "y. /o ho"d other)ise )i"" "ead to absurdities

and ne$ate the +resident5s o)er to ma4e ad interim a ointments. :n the $reat ma6ority of cases, the %ommission on ' ointments usua""y fai"s to act, for "ac4 of time, on the ad interim a ointments first issued to a ointees. :f such ad interim a ointments can no "on$er be rene)ed, the +resident )i"" certain"y hesitate to ma4e ad interim a ointments because most of her a ointees )i"" effective"y be disa roved by mere inaction of the %ommission on ' ointments. /his )i"" nu""ify the constitutiona" o)er of the +resident to ma4e ad interim a ointments, a o)er intended to avoid disru tions in vita" $overnment services. /his %ourt cannot subscribe to a ro osition that )i"" )rea4 havoc on vita" $overnment services. /he rohibition on rea ointment is common to the three constitutiona" commissions. /he framers of the resent %onstitution rohibited rea ointments for t)o reasons. /he first is to revent a second a ointment for those )ho have been revious"y a ointed and confirmed even if they served for "ess than seven years. /he second is to insure that the members of the three constitutiona" commissions do not serve beyond the fi-ed term of seven years. %OM,K,% @eso"ution =o. 3300 does not require that every transfer or reassi$nment of %OM,K,% ersonne" shou"d carry the concurrence of the %OM,K,% as a co""e$ia" body. :nter retin$ @eso"ution =o. 3300 to require such concurrence )i"" render the reso"ution meanin$"ess since the %OM,K,% en banc )i"" have to a rove every ersonne" transfer or reassi$nment, ma4in$ the reso"ution utter"y use"ess. @eso"ution =o. 3300 shou"d be inter reted for )hat it is, an a rova" to effect transfers and reassi$nments of ersonne", )ithout need of securin$ a second a rova" from

,ven if it )i"" not resu"t in his servin$ more than seven years, a rea ointment of such erson to serve an une- ired term is a"so rohibited because his situation )i"" be simi"ar to those a ointed under the second sentence of Section 1 E.F, 'rtic"e :L3% of the %onstitution.

the %OM,K,% en banc to actua""y im "ement such transfer or reassi$nment. /he %OM,K,% %hairman is the officia" e- ress"y authoriDed by "a) to transfer or reassi$n %OM,K,% ersonne". /he erson ho"din$ that office, in a de 6ure ca acity, is (eni ayo. /he %OM,K,% en banc, in %OM,K,% @eso"ution =o. 3300, a roved the transfer or reassi$nment of %OM,K,% ersonne" durin$ the e"ection eriod. /hus, (eni ayo5s order reassi$nin$ etitioner from the ,:C to the Ka) Ce artment does not vio"ate Section .01 EhF of the Omnibus ,"ection %ode. TITLE: DE RAMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS CITATION: G.R. NO. 131136 DATE: FEBRUAR# "8, "001 FACTS: Mayor %onrado de @ama )on as mayor of +a$bi"ao, HueDon. One of the first thin$s he did u on assum tion of office )as to )rite the %ivi" Service %ommission and see4 the reca"" of the a ointments of 1< munici a" em "oyees. 'ccordin$ to him, said a ointments shou"d be reca""ed as they )ere Amidni$htB a ointments of the former mayor, ,ve"yn 'be6a. /he %S% denied his request sayin$ that the a ointments of the 1< em "oyees )ere made in accordance )ith "a) and that the sec.1>, art.V:: of the %onstitution )hich is bein$ re"ied u on by Mayor de @ama, ertains on"y to the a ointments of the out$oin$ +resident and not of "oca" e"ective officia"s.

sec.80 of @a *0<1 that a ointments can on"y be made )ithin < months from the ub"ication of the vacancies. ISSUE: U 1hether or not the a ointments made by the former mayor shou"d be reca""ed7

constitutiona" rohibition on so3ca""ed Amidni$ht a ointments,B s ecifica""y those made )ithin t)o E.F months immediate"y rior to the ne-t residentia" e"ections, a "ies on"y to the +resident or 'ctin$ +resident. :f ever there )ere other rocedura" or "e$a" requirements that )ere vio"ated in im "ementin$ the a ointments of the rivate res ondents, the same )ere not seasonab"y brou$ht before the %ivi" Service %ommission. /hese cannot be raised for the first time on a ea". :n vie) of a"" the fore$oin$, the instant etition for revie) )as denied and the @eso"ution of the %ourt of ' ea"s in %'3 8.@. S+ =o. <.890 affirmin$ %S% @eso"utions =os. 903.8.8 and 903*>.* )as '&&:@M,C in toto.

can resume office )ithout com "etin$ the 90 day sus ension im osed u on him. /he etitioner ar$ues that +resident may $rant e-ecutive c"emency on"y in crimina" cases. /hey say that the qua"ifyin$ hrase Aafter conviction by fina" 6ud$mentB a "ies so"e"y to crimina" cases, and no other "a) a""o)s the $rant of e-ecutive c"emency or ardon to anyone )ho has been Aconvicted in an administrative case, a""e$ed"y because the )ord AconvictionB refers on"y to crimina" cases. ISSUE: U 1hether or not the +resident of the +hi"i ines has the o)er to $rant e-ecutive c"emency in administrative cases7

THE COURTS RULING: /he %S% has correct"y ru"ed that the a ointments )ere made in accordance )ith the "a). :t )as a"ready too "ate for Mayor de @ama to c"aim that a ointments )ere tainted )ith fraud since he did not raise this in his first com "aint, )hich on"y re"ied on his a""e$ation that the same )ere midni$ht a ointments. On"y the %S% has the o)er to reca"" the a ointments u on $rounds mentioned in the @evised 'dministrative %ode.3 2o)ever, none of the $rounds e-ist to )arrant the reca"" of the said a ointments.

THE COURTS RULING: :t is not s ecified in the constitution )hether it may be considered under crimina" or administrative cases. :f the "a) does not distin$uish, so )e must not distin$uish. /he %onstitution does not distin$uish bet)een )hich cases e-ecutive c"emency may be e-ercised by the +resident, )ith the so"e e-c"usion of im eachment cases. (y the same to4en, if e-ecutive c"emency may be e-ercised on"y in crimina" cases, it )ou"d indeed be unnecessary to rovide for the e-c"usion of im eachment cases from the covera$e of 'rtic"e V::, Section 19 of the %onstitution. %ases of im eachment are automatica""y e-c"uded inasmuch as the same do not necessari"y invo"ve crimina" offenses. /he do not c"ear"y see any va"id and convincin$ reason )hy the +resident cannot $rant e-ecutive c"emency in administrative cases. :t is the court5s

/o $rant the mayor5s request is to vio"ate the security of tenure of the a ointed em "oyees. 'side from this, the %ourt ru"ed that it )as error for Mayor de @ama to invo4e the constitutiona" rohibition a$ainst midni$ht a ointments. 'ccordin$ to the %ourt, this on"y ertains to a ointments made by an out$oin$ +resident and is not a "icab"e to a ointments made by an out$oin$ mayor. 'ccordin$"y, the a ointments of the rivate res ondents may on"y be reca""ed on the above3cited $rounds. 'nd yet, the on"y reason advanced by the etitioner to 6ustify the reca"" )as that these )ere Amidni$ht a ointments.B /he %S% correct"y ru"ed, ho)ever, that the
3

TITLE:

LLAMAS VS. ORBOS

CITATION: "0" SCRA 844 G.R. NO. 99031 DATE: OCTOBER 1!, 1991 FACTS: Ocam o ::: )as the $overnor of /ar"ac +rovince. K"amas to$ether )ith some other com "ainants fi"ed an administrative case a$ainst Ocam o ::: for a""e$ed acts constitutin$ $raft and corru tion. Ocam o ::: )as found $ui"ty. 2e )as sus ended for office for 90 days hence his vice $overnor, K"amas, assumed office. :n not "ess than 30 days ho)ever, Ocam o ::: returned )ith an 'O sho)in$ that he )as ardoned hence he

# on a ea" to the %', Mayor de @ama fi"ed a su "ementa" "eadin$ to the a ea" a""e$in$ that the a ointments )ere a"so tainted )ith fraud since the former mayor did not fo""o) the ru"e in

considered vie) that if the +resident can $rant re rieves, commutations and ardons, and remit fines and forfeitures in crimina" cases, )ith much more reason can she $rant e-ecutive c"emency in administrative cases, )hich are c"ear"y "ess serious than crimina" offenses.

/he court stressed, ho)ever, that )hen )e say the +resident can $rant e-ecutive c"emency in administrative cases, )e refer on"y to a"" administrative cases in the ,-ecutive branch, not in the Judicia" or Ke$is"ative branches of the $overnment. :n crimina" cases, the quantum of evidence required to convict an individua" is roof beyond reasonab"e doubt. On the other hand, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence required is mere substantia" evidence to su ort a decision.

Sometime before 19*9, etitioner 1i"fredo /orres )as convicted by the %&: of Mani"a of . counts estafa. /hese convictions )ere affirmed by the %ourt of ' ea"s. /he ma-imum sentence )ou"d e- ire on =ovember ., .000. ' conditiona" ardon )as $ranted by the +resident on condition that etitioner )ou"d Anot a$ain vio"ate any of the ena" "a)s of the +hi"i ines shou"d this condition be vio"ated, he )i"" be roceeded a$ainst in the manner rescribed by "a).B +etitioner acce ted the conditiona" ardon and )as consequent"y re"eased from confinement. :n 1980, the (oard of +ardons and +aro"e recommended to the +resident the cance""ation of the conditiona" ardon $ranted to the etitioner. @ecords of the =(: sho)ed a "on$ "ist of char$es had been brou$ht a$ainst the etitioner durin$ the "ast .0 years. E.0 counts of estafa and seditionF @es ondent Minister of Justice =e ta"i 8onDa"es )rote the +resident informin$ her of the @eso"ution of the (oard recommendin$ the cance""ation of the ardon revious"y $ranted to etitioner. /he conditiona" ardon )as cance""ed and etitioner )as arrested and confined in Muntin"u a to serve the une- ired ortion of his sentence. 2ence, this action im u$nin$ the va"idity of the Order of 'rrest and @ecommitment c"aimin$ that he did not vio"ated his conditiona" ardon since he has not been convicted by fina" 6ud$ment of the .0 counts of estafa nor of the crime of sedition.

for vio"ation of the terms of his conditiona" ardon7 THE COURTS RULING: /he $rant of ardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditiona" ardon are ure"y e-ecutive acts )hich are not sub6ect to 6udicia" scrutiny. /he determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a ardon, and the ro er consequences of such breach, may be either a ure"y e-ecutive act, not sub6ect to 6udicia" scrutiny under Section 0< E:F of the @evised 'dministrative %ode9 or it may be a 6udicia" act consistin$ of tria" for and conviction of vio"ation of a conditiona" ardon under 'rtic"e 1>9 of the @evised +ena" %ode. 1here the +resident o ts to roceed under Section 0< E:F of the @evised 'dministrative %ode, no 6udicia" ronouncement of $ui"t of a subsequent crime is necessary much "ess conviction therefor by fina" 6ud$ment of a court, in order that a convict may be recommended for the vio"ation of his conditiona" ardon. (ecause due rocess is not sem er et ubique 6udicia" rocess, and because the conditiona""y ardoned convict had a"ready been accorded 6udicia" due rocess in his tria" and conviction for the offense for )hich he )as conditiona""y ardoned, Section 0< E:F of the @evised 'dministrative %ode is not aff"icted )ith a constitutiona" vice. :t may be em hasiDed that )hat is invo"ved in the instant case is not the rosecution of the aro"ee for a subsequent offense in the re$u"ar course of administration of the crimina" "a). 1hat is invo"ved is rather the ascertainment of )hether the convict has breached his underta4in$ that he )ou"d not a$ain vio"ate any of the ena" "a)s of the +hi"i inesB for ur oses of reim osition u on him of the remitted ortion of his ori$ina" sentence. /he

consequences that the S% here dea"s )ith are the consequences of an ascertained breach of the conditions of a ardon. ' convict $ranted conditiona" ardon, "i4e the etitioner herein, )ho is recommitted must of course be convicted by fina" 6ud$ment of a court of the subsequent crime or crimes )ith )hich he )as char$ed before the crimina" ena"ty for such subsequent offenseEsF can be im osed u on him. '$ain, since 'rtic"e 1>9 of the @+% defines a distinct, substantive fe"ony, the aro"ee or convict )ho is re$arded as havin$ vio"ated the rovisions thereof must be char$ed, rosecuted and convicted by fina" 6ud$ment before he can be made to suffer the ena"ty in 'rtic"e 1>9. TITLE: VERA VS. PEOPLE

CITATION: 7 SCRA 1!" DATE: 1963 FACTS: Vera, &i$ueras, 'mbas, &"orido, (ayran and 9. others E9* in a""F )ere char$ed )ith the com "e- crime of 4idna in$ )ith murder of 'madeo KoDanes. /hey invo4ed the benefits of the amnesty roc"amation of the resident and the case )as referred to the 8th $ueri""a amnesty commission. none of the etitioners admitted havin$ committed the crime. Vera )as the on"y one )ho too4 the )itness stand and denied havin$ 4i""ed "oDanes. /he commission said it cou"d not ta4e co$niDance of the case because the benefits of amnesty cou"d on"y be invo4ed by defendants in a crimina" case )ho, admittin$ commission of the crime, "ead that the said crime )as committed in ursuance of the resistance movement and er etrated a$ainst ersons )ho aided the enemy durin$ the Ja anese occu ation.

TITLE: TORRES VS. GONZALES CITATION: 1!" SCRA "7" G.R. NO. 7687" DATE: 1UL# "3, 1987 FACTS:

ISSUE: U 1hether or not the conviction of a crime by fina" 6ud$ment of a court necessary before the etitioner can be va"id"y rearrrested and recommitted

1hen Vera a ea"ed, the amnesty commission denied the a ea", addin$ that the facts of the case sho)ed that the victim )as a member of another $ueri""a $rou and that the murder seemed to have stemmed from a riva"ry bet)een the t)o $rou s. Vera brou$ht the case to the %ourt of ' ea"s, as4in$ the %' to a"so ru"e, one )ay or another, of the murder case. (ut the %' ru"ed that amnesty a "ies on"y to those )ho had admitted the fact but said they shou"d not be unished for the crime done )as in ursuance of resistance to the enemy. :t a"so said it cou"d not ta4e co$niDance of the murder case because that came from the amnesty commission, )hich had no 6urisdiction over the murder case. /he case )as brou$ht to the %ourt on a ea", )hich cited +eo "e vs K"anita, )hich said that it )as inconsistent for an a e""ant to 6ustify an act or see4 for$iveness for somethin$ )hich he said he has not committed. ISSUE: U 1hether or not there is a distinction bet)een ardon and amnesty7

brin$ the crime char$ed )ithin the sco e of the amnesty roc"amation. /he term ;amnesty; be"on$s to internationa" "a), and is a "ied to rebe""ions )hich by their ma$nitude are ro er"y )ithin internationa" "a), but has no technica" meanin$ in the common "a). :t is a synonym of ob"ivion, )hich in the ,n$"ish "a) is the synonym of ardon. E(ouvier, ;'mnesty.;F :n so far as the roc"amation e-tends to the offenses of treason and sedition, it may be re$arded as an amnesty. (ut as to those offenses )hich have arisen out of interna" o"itica" feuds and dissensions amon$ the &i"i inos themse"ves, such as the ordinary crimes of murder, robbery, arson, etc., the roc"amation must be re$arded in the nature of a ardon. ' ardon may be $enera", a "yin$ to a"" ersons fa""in$ )ithin a certain cate$ory, or it may be conceded to a sin$"e individua" for an ordinary crime, in )hich "atter case it is a s ecia" ardon, and is evidenced by a )ritin$, the acce tance of )hich is necessary in order that it may become effectua". 1here the ardonin$ o)er is vested in the "e$is"ature and is e-ercised by "e$is"ative $rant, and is in the nature of a $enera" amnesty for strict"y o"itica" offenses, it has been considered in the nature of a ub"ic "a), thus havin$ the same effect on the case as if the $enera" "a) unishin$ the offense had been re ea"ed or annu""ed. E#nited States vs. 1i"son, * +eters, 103.F TITLE: MONSANTO VS. FACTORAN

:n a decision rendered on March .>, 1983, the Sandi$anbayan convicted etitioner Sa"vacion '. Monsanto Ethen assistant treasurer of %a"bayo$ %ityF and three other accused, of the com "ecrime of estafa throu$h fa"sification of ub"ic documents and sentenced them to im risonment of four E<F years, t)o E.F months and one E1F day of rision correcciona". 's minimum, to ten E10F years and one E1F day of rision mayor as ma-imum, and to ay a fine of +3,>00. /hey )ere further ordered to 6oint"y and severa""y indemnify the $overnment in the sum of +<,89..>0 re resentin$ the ba"ance of the amount defrauded and to ay the costs ro ortionate"y. +etitioner Monsanto a ea"ed her conviction to this %ourt )hich subsequent"y affirmed the same. She then fi"ed a motion for reconsideration but )hi"e said motion )as endin$, she )as e-tended on Cecember 1*,198< by then +resident Marcos abso"ute ardon )hich she acce ted on Cecember .1, 198<. (y reason of said ardon, etitioner )rote the %a"bayo$ %ity treasurer requestin$ that she be restored to her former ost as assistant city treasurer since the same )as sti"" vacant. +etitioner!s "etter3request )as referred to the Ministry of &inance. :n its <th:ndorsement dated March 1, 198>, the &inance Ministry ru"ed that etitioner may be reinstated to her osition )ithout the necessity of a ne)a ointment not ear"ier than the date she )as e-tended the abso"ute ardon. :t a"so directed the city treasurer to see to it that the amount of +<,89..>0 )hich the Sandi$anbayan had required to be indemnified in favor of the $overnment as )e"" as the costs of the "iti$ation, be satisfied. See4in$ reconsideration of the fore$oin$ ru"in$, etitioner )rote the Ministry on ' ri" 1*, 198> stressin$ that the fu"" ardon besto)ed on her has )i ed out the crime )hich im "ies that

her service in the $overnment has never been interru ted and therefore the date of her reinstatement shou"d corres ond to the date of her reventive sus ension )hich is 'u$ust 1,198.9 that she is entit"ed to bac4 ay for the entire eriod of her sus ension9 and that she shou"d not be required to ay the ro ortionate share of the amount of +<,89..>0. ISSUE: U 1hether or not a ub"ic officer, )ho has been $ranted an abso"ute ardon by the %hief ,-ecutive, is entit"ed to reinstatement to her former osition )ithout need of a ne) a ointment7

THE COURTS RULING: +ardon is defined as ;an act of $race, roceedin$ from the o)er entrusted )ith the e-ecution of the "a)s, )hich e-em ts the individua", on )hom it is besto)ed, from the unishment the "a) inf"icts for a crime he has committed. :t is the rivate, thou$h officia" act of the e-ecutive ma$istrate, de"ivered to the individua" for )hose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officia""y to the %ourt. ' ardon is a deed, to the va"idity of )hich de"ivery is essentia", and de"ivery is not com "ete )ithout acce tance.;+etitioner maintains that )hen she )as issued abso"ute ardon, the %hief ,-ecutive dec"ared her not $ui"ty of the crime for )hich she )as convicted. :n the case of State v. 2aDDard, )e find this stron$ observationG ;/o assume that a"" or even a ma6or number of ardons are issued because of innocence of the reci ients is not on"y to indict our 6udicia" system, but requires us to assume that )hich )e a"" 4no) to be untrue. /he very act of for$iveness im "ies the commission of )ron$, and that )ron$ has been estab"ished by the most

THE COURTS RULING: 'mnesty resu oses the commission of a crime, and )hen the accused maintains that he has not committed a crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty. 1here an amnesty roc"amation im oses certain conditions, as in this case, it is incumbent u on the accused to rove the e-istence of such conditions. /he invocation of amnesty is in the nature of a "ea of confession and avoidance, )hich means that the "eader admits the a""e$ations a$ainst him but disc"aims "iabi"ity therefore on account of intervenin$ facts )hich, if roved, )ou"d

CITATION: G.R. NO. 78"39 DATE: FEBRUAR# 9, 1989 FACTS:

com "ete method 4no)n to modern civi"iDation. +ardons may re"ieve from the disabi"ity of fines and forfeitures attendant u on a conviction, but they cannot erase the stain of bad character, )hich has been definite"y fi-ed. :n this onencia, the %ourt )ishes to stress one vita" ointG 1hi"e )e are re ared to concede that ardon may remit a"" the ena" consequences of a crimina" indictment if on"y to $ive meanin$ to the fiat that a ardon, bein$ a residentia" rero$ative, shou"d not be circumscribed by "e$is"ative action, )e do not subscribe to the fictitious be"ief that ardon b"ots out the $ui"t of an individua" and that once he is abso"ved, he shou"d be treated as if he )ere innocent. &or )hatever may have been the 6udicia" dicta in the ast, )e cannot erceive ho) ardon can roduce such ;mora" chan$es; as to equatea ardoned convict in character and conduct )ith one )ho has constant"y maintained the mar4 of a $ood, "a)3abidin$ citiDen. +ardon $ranted after conviction frees the individua" from a"" the ena"ties and "e$a" disabi"ities and restores him to a"" his civi" ri$hts. (ut un"ess e- ress"y $rounded on the erson!s innocence E)hich is rareF, it cannot brin$ bac4 "ost re utation for honesty, inte$rity and fair dea"in$. /his must be constant"y 4e t in mind "est )e "ose trac4 of the true character and ur ose of the rivi"e$e. /hus, not)ithstandin$ the e- ansive and effusive "an$ua$e of the 8ar"and case, )e are in fu"" a$reement )ith the common"y3he"d o inion that ardon does not i so facto restore a convicted fe"on to ub"ic office necessari"y re"inquished or forfeited by reason of the conviction a"thou$h such ardon undoubted"y restores his e"i$ibi"ity for a ointment to that office. /he rationa"e is "ain"y evident +ub"ic offices are intended rimari"y for the co""ective rotection, safety and benefit of the common $ood. /hey cannot be com romised to favor

rivate interests. /o insist on automaticre instatement because of a mista4en notion that the ardon virtua""y acquitted one from the offense of estafa )ou"d be $ross"y untenab"e.

' ardon, a"beit fu"" and "enary, cannot rec"ude the a ointin$ o)er from refusin$ a ointment to anyone deemed to be of bad character, a oor mora" ris4, or )ho is unsuitab"e by reason of the ardoned conviction of etitioner Monsanto, this is the bottom "ineG the abso"ute disqua"ification or ine"i$ibi"ity from ub"ic office forms art of the unishment rescribed by the @evised +ena" %ode for estafa thru fa"sification of ub"ic documents. :t is c"ear from the authorities referred to that )hen her $ui"t and unishment )ere e- un$ed by her ardon9 this articu"ar disabi"ity )as "i4e)ise removed. 2enceforth, etitioner may a "y for rea ointment to the office )hich )as forfeited by reason of her conviction. 'nd in considerin$ her qua"ifications and suitabi"ity for the ub"ic ost, the facts constitutin$ her offense must be and shou"d be eva"uated and ta4en into account to determine u"timate"y )hether she can once a$ain be entrusted )ith ub"ic funds. Stated different"y, the ardon $ranted to etitioner has resu"ted in removin$ her disqua"ification from ho"din$ ub"ic em "oyment but it cannot $o beyond that. /o re$ain her former ost as assistant city treasurer, she must re3 a "y and under$o the usua" rocedure required for a ne) a ointment. &ina""y, etitioner has sou$ht e-em tion from the ayment of the civi" indemnity im osed u on her by the sentence. /he %ourt cannot ob"i$e her. %ivi" "iabi"ity arisin$ from crime is $overned by the @evised +ena" %ode. :t subsists not)ithstandin$ service of sentence, or

for any reason the sentence is not served by ardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. +etitioner!s civi" "iabi"ity may on"y be e-tin$uished by the same causes reco$niDed in the %ivi" %ode, name"yG ayment, "oss of the thin$ due, remission of the debt, mer$er of the ri$hts of creditor and debtor, com ensation and novation. /he assai"ed reso"ution of former Ce uty ,-ecutive Secretary &u"$encio S.&actoran, Jr., dated ' ri" 1>, 1980, )as affirmed. TITLE: TORRES VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PRISONS CITATION: G.R. NO. 1""338 DATE: DECEMBER "9, 199! FACTS: /he )ife and chi"dren of convicted fe"on 1i"fredo Sumu"on$ /orres ray for his immediate re"ease from rison on the $round that the e-ercise of the +resident!s rero$ative under Section 0< EiF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode to determine the occurrence, if any, of a breach of a condition of a ardon in vio"ation of ardonee!s ri$ht to due rocess and the constitutiona" resum tion of innocence, constitutes a $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to "ac4 or e-cess of 6urisdiction. Of t)o counts of estafa /orres )as convicted by the %ourt of &irst :nstance of Mani"a some time before 19*9. /hese convictions )ere affirmed by the %ourt of ' ea"s. /he ma-imum sentence )ou"d e- ire on =ovember ., .000. On ' ri" 18, 19*9, a conditiona" ardon )as $ranted to /orres by the +resident of the +hi"i ines on condition that etitioner )ou"d ;not a$ain vio"ate any of the ena" "a)s of the +hi"i ines. >; +etitioner acce ted the conditiona" ardon and )as consequent"y re"eased from confinement. 0

On May .1, 1980, the (oard of +ardons and +aro"e reso"ved to recommend to the +resident the cance""ation of the conditiona" ardon $ranted to /orres because /orres had been char$ed )ith t)enty counts of estafa before, and convicted of sedition by, the @e$iona" /ria" %ourt of HueDon %ity. On Se tember 8, 1980, the +resident cance""ed the conditiona" ardon of /orres. On October 10, 1980, then Minister of Justice =e ta"i '. 8onDa"es issued ;by authority of the +resident; an Order of 'rrest and @ecommitment * a$ainst etitioner. /he etitioner )as accordin$"y arrested and confined in Muntin"u a to serve the une- ired ortion of his sentence. /orres im u$ned the va"idity of the Order of 'rrest and @ecommitment in the aforecited case of /orres v. 8onDa"es 8. /here )e ru"ed that3 Succinct"y ut, in roceedin$ a$ainst a convict )ho has been conditiona" ardoned and )ho is a""e$ed to have breached the conditions of his ardon, the ,-ecutive Ce artment has t)o o tionsG EiF to roceed a$ainst him under Section 0< EiF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode, or EiiF to roceed a$ainst him under 'rtic"e 1>9 of the @evised +ena" %ode. 2ere, the +resident has chosen to roceed a$ainst the etitioner under Section 0< EiF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode. /hat choice is an e-ercise of the +resident!s e-ecutive rero$ative and is not sub6ect to 6udicia" scrutiny ISSUE: U 1hether or not the e-ercise of the +resident!s rero$ative under Section 0< EiF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode vio"ates the ardonee!s ri$ht to due rocess and the constitutiona" resum tion of innocence, constitutes a $rave abuse of discretion amountin$ to "ac4 or e-cess of 6urisdiction7

THE COURTS RULING: ' conditiona" ardon is in the nature of a contract bet)een the soverei$n o)er or the %hief ,-ecutive and the convicted crimina" to the effect that the former )i"" re"ease the "atter sub6ect to the condition that if he does not com "y )ith the terms of the ardon, he )i"" be recommitted to rison to serve the une- ired ortion of the sentence or an additiona" one. 10 (y the ardonee!s consent to the terms sti u"ated in this contract, the ardonee has thereby "aced himse"f under the su ervision of the %hief ,-ecutive or his de"e$ate )ho is duty3bound to see to it that the ardonee com "ies )ith the terms and conditions of the ardon. #nder Section 0< EiF of the @evised 'dministrative %ode, the %hief ,-ecutive is authoriDed to order ;the arrest and re3 incarceration of any such erson )ho, in his 6ud$ment, sha"" fai" to com "y )ith the condition, or conditions of his ardon, aro"e, or sus ension of sentence.; :t is no) a )e""3entrenched ru"e in this 6urisdiction that this e-ercise of residentia" 6ud$ment is beyond 6udicia" scrutiny. /he determination of the vio"ation of the conditiona" ardon rests e-c"usive"y in the sound 6ud$ment of the %hief ,-ecutive, and the ardonee, havin$ consented to "ace his "iberty on conditiona" ardon u on the 6ud$ment of the o)er that has $ranted it, cannot invo4e the aid of the courts, ho)ever erroneous the findin$s may be u on )hich his recommitment )as ordered. 11 :t matters not that in the case of /orres, he has a""e$ed"y been acquitted in t)o of the three crimina" cases fi"ed a$ainst him subsequent to his conditiona" ardon, and that the third case remains endin$ for thirteen E13F years in a arent vio"ation of his ri$ht to a s eedy tria". 2abeas cor us "ies on"y )here the restraint of a erson!s "iberty has been 6udicia""y ad6ud$ed as i""e$a" or un"a)fu". :n the instant etition, the incarceration

of /orres remains "e$a" considerin$ that, )ere it not for the $rant of conditiona" ardon )hich had been revo4ed because of a breach thereof, the determination of )hich is beyond 6udicia" scrutiny, he )ou"d have served his fina" sentence for his first conviction unti" =ovember ., .000. #"timate"y, so"e"y vested in the %hief ,-ecutive, )ho in the first "ace )as the e-c"usive author of the conditiona" ardon and of its revocation, is the coro""ary rero$ative to reinstate the ardon if in his o)n 6ud$ment, the acquitta" of the ardonee from the subsequent char$es fi"ed a$ainst him, )arrants the same. %ourts have no authority to interfere )ith the $rant by the +resident of a ardon to a convicted crimina". :t has been our fortified ru"in$ that a fina" 6udicia" ronouncement as to the $ui"t of a ardonee is not a requirement for the +resident to determine )hether or not there has been a breach of the terms of a conditiona" ardon. /here is "i4e)ise ni" a basis for the courts to effectuate the reinstatement of a conditiona" ardon revo4ed by the +resident in the e-ercise of o)ers undis uted"y so"e"y and abso"ute"y "od$ed in his office. /he instant etition for habeas cor us )as dismissed for "ac4 of merit. TITLE: MACAGA-AN VS. PEOPLE

amnesty a ers, )hich etitioners )ere unab"e to roduce. /hereu on, the Sandi$anbayan denied etitioners! motion. :n a motion for reconsideration, the accused sou$ht to rove by secondary evidence their c"aim that they had been $ranted amnesty by former +resident Marcos. /he /anodbayan ob6ected to a""o)in$ the accused to adduce secondary evidence of $rantEsF of amnesty to the accused. :n an e-tended reso"ution dated .* January 198*, the res ondent Sandi$anbayan denied the motion for reconsideration. /he etitioners no) see4 certiorari to revie) and set aside the e-tended reso"ution of the Sandi$anbayan, c"aimin$ that the res ondent court committed reversib"e error, first"y, in ho"din$ that +residentia" Cecree =o. 108., the a "icab"e amnesty statue accordin$ to etitioners, did not a "y to them9 and second"y, in not a""o)in$ them to resent secondary evidence of the amnesty a""e$ed"y $ranted by the former +resident to the etitioners. /he etitioners state that they a "ied for amnesty throu$h the 3rd and 11th 'mnesty %ommission EsicF of Kanao de" Sur and Mara)i %ity and that on . &ebruary 198>, they )ere $ranted conditiona" amnesty b , the said %ommission, sub6ect to the a rova" or fina" action of the +resident of the +hi"i ines ursuant to +.C. =o. 108., dated . &ebruary 19**. /he 'mnesty %ommission, the etitioners continue, endorsed the amnesty a "ications of the etitioners to the +resident, recommendin$ a rova" thereof or $rant of e-ecutive c"emency to the etitioners. /he etitioners! amnesty a "ications are said to have been submitted to the Office of the +resident by the then +residentia" 'ssistant Victor =ituda. &ormer 8overnor Mohammed '"i Cima oro, the etitioners further state, made )ritten re resentations dated .* January 1980 )ith former +resident Marcos concernin$

the etitioners! a "ications durin$ a o"itica" ra""y of the Mi"usan$ (a$on$ Ki unan on .. January 1980. Mr. Marcos a arent"y )rote on the u er ri$hthand corner of former 8overnor Cima oro!s "etter the fo""o)in$G ;' roved; and si$ned the same )ith a art"y i""e$ib"e date. /he etitioners state, fina""y, that the ori$ina" co ies of the amnesty a ers )ere in the ossession of then +residentia" 'dviser Joaquin Venus and )ere "ost or destroyed at Ma"acanan$ ;durin$ the &ebruary 1980 b"ood"ess mi"itary revo"ution; and cou"d not no) be "ocated. /he res ondent Sandi$anbayan dec"ined to a""o) the etitioners to submit secondary evidence of the c"aimed a "ications for and $rant of amnesty, u on the $round that even if the etitioners )ere to succeed in rovin$ or authenticatin$ the a""e$ed amnesty a ers throu$h secondary evidence, etitioners )ou"d nonethe"ess not be entit"ed to dischar$e from the convictions rendered by that court. /he res ondent court he"d that the benefits of amnesty )ere never avai"ab"e to the etitioners under +.C. =o. 118.. ISSUE: 1hether or not the etitioner can be $ranted on the a "ied amnesty7

CITATION: 1!" SCRA 430 G.R. NOS. 77317 !0 DATE: 1UL# "9, 1987 FACTS: On 1< March 1980, etitioners moved ;to c"ose their cases and re"ease NtheirO bondNsO; on the $round that they had been $iven amnesty by former +resident &. ,. Marcos on .8 January 1980. /he Sandi$anbayan required them to submit ori$ina"s or authenticated co ies of their

THE COURTS RULING: +.C. =o. 118. as amended by +.C. =o. 1<.9, dated 10 June 19*8, rovides, in re"evant ortion, as fo""o)sG S,%/:O= 1. +roc"amation of 'mnesty. S 'mnesty is hereby decreed in favor of a"" ersons )ho have been arrested and?or char$ed, or a"thou$h not arrested and?or char$ed may have committed acts )hich ma4e them "iab"e for, vio"ation of the rovisions of @e ub"ic 'ct =o. 1*00, as

amended by +residentia" Cecree =o. 88>. and those )ho have been arrested for, and or char$ed or char$eab"e )ith crimes a$ainst ub"ic orderas defined and ena"iDed under @evised +ena" %ode, inc"udin$ those crimes and offenses )hich may have been committed by said ersons in furtherance thereof. S,%. .. +ersons Cisqua"ified. S /he fo""o)in$ ersons are disqua"ified from amnesty under this CecreeG EaF /hose )ho have romoted, maintained or headed a rebe""ion or insurrection or )ho, )hi"e ho"din$ ub"ic office or em "oyment too4 art therein, en$a$ed in )ar a$ainst the forces of the 8overnment, destroyed ro erty or committed serious vio"ence, e-acted contributions or diverted ub"ic funds from the "a)fu" ur ose for )hich they had been a ro riated9 rovided, that ersons )ho have been arrested and?or char$ed )ith havin$ mere"y artici ated or e-ecuted the commands of others in a rebe""ion may be $ranted amnesty. EbF /hose )ho have been arrested and?or char$ed )ith murder, homicide, serious hysica" in6uries, crimes a$ainst chastity, robbery, iracy, arson, hi6ac4in$, vio"ations of the &irearms and ,- "osives Ka), and assau"t u on and resistance and disobedience to ersons in authority and their a$ents, e-ce t if such crime or offense )as committed in furtherance of subversion or crimes a$ainst ub"ic order as a mere artici ant?affi"iate?member. S,%. <. %onditions for the $rant of amnesty. S 'ny erson a "yin$ for amnesty ursuant to this Cecree must satisfy the fo""o)in$ requirementsG a. :f under arrest or char$ed as of the date of this decree, he must submit his a "ication not "ater than Se tember 30, 19*8 in the rescribed form hereto attached as 'nne- '9

:f not under arrest, he must submit such a "ication )ithin si- months after his arrest or surrender9 b. 2e must rene) his oath of a""e$iance to the @e ub"ic of the +hi"i ines and s)ear or affirm to su ort and defend the %onstitution of the +hi"i ines9 and c. 2e must surrender )hatever un"icensed firearms and?or e- "osives and ammunition he may have in his ossession.; E,m hasis su "iedF 's ointed out by the Sandi$anbayan, under the very "e$is"ation authoriDin$ the amnesty, EaF /he crimes to be amnestied must have been for vio"ations of subversion "a)s or those defined and roscribed under crimes a$ainst ub"ic order under the @evised +ena" %ode9 and EbF /he a "ications for amnesty must have been fi"ed not "ater than Se tember 30, 19*8 or si- months after the arrest or surrender of the a "icant for amnesty.; /he instant case therefore resents the issue of )hat effect, if any, may be $iven to su osed acts of the former +resident )hich )ere in conf"ict )ith or in vio"ation of decrees issued by that same former +resident. So vie)ed, this %ourt has no a"ternative save to dec"are that the su osed acts of the former +resident done in 198> in c"ear conf"ict )ith the restrictions embodied in the very decrees romu"$ated by that same former +resident, cannot be $iven any "e$a" effect. :t may be su osed that the former +resident cou"d have va"id"y amended +residentia" Cecrees =os. 108. and 118. so as to )i e a)ay the restrictions and "imitations in fact found in those decrees. (ut the former +resident did not so amend his o)n decrees and he must be he"d to the terms and conditions that he himse"f had

romu"$ated in the e-ercise of "e$is"ative o)er. :t may be S )e do not com "ete"y discount the ossibi"ity S that the former +resident did in fact act in contravention of the decrees here invo"ved by $rantin$ the amnesty c"aimed by etitioners, and that by such acts, he may indeed have aroused e- ectations Eho)ever un6ustified under the terms of e-istin$ "a)F in the minds of the etitioners. :f such be the case, then the a ro riate recourse of the etitioners is not to this %ourt, nor to any other court, but rather to the ,-ecutive Ce artment of the $overnment. /he +etition )as denied. /he @eso"ution dated .* January 198* of the res ondent Sandi$anbayan )as affirmed. TITLE: IBP VS. ZAMORA

the armed forces is sub6ect to 6udicia" revie) E.F 1hether or not the ca""in$ of the armed forces to assist the +=+ in 6oint visibi"ity atro"s vio"ates the constitutiona" rovisions on civi"ian su remacy over the mi"itary and the civi"ian character of the +=+

THE COURTS RULING: 1hen the +resident ca""s the armed forces to revent or su ress "a)"ess vio"ence, invasion or rebe""ion, he necessari"y e-ercises a discretionary o)er so"e"y vested in his )isdom. #nder Sec. 18, 'rt. V:: of the %onstitution, %on$ress may revo4e such roc"amation of martia" "a) or sus ension of the rivi"e$e of the )rit of habeas cor us and the %ourt may revie) the sufficiency of the factua" basis thereof. 2o)ever, there is no such equiva"ent rovision dea"in$ )ith the revocation or revie) of the +resident5s action to ca"" out the armed forces. /he distinction "aces the ca""in$ out o)er in a different cate$ory from the o)er to dec"are martia" "a) and o)er to sus end the rivi"e$e of the )rit of habeas cor us, other)ise, the framers of the %onstitution )ou"d have sim "y "um ed to$ether the 3 o)ers and rovided for their revocation and revie) )ithout any qua"ification. /he reason for the difference in the treatment of the said o)ers hi$h"i$hts the intent to $rant the +resident the )idest "ee)ay and broadest discretion in usin$ the o)er to ca"" out because it is considered as the "esser and more beni$n o)er com ared to the o)er to sus end the rivi"e$e of the )rit of habeas cor us and the o)er to im ose martia" "a), both of )hich invo"ve the curtai"ment and su ression of certain

CITATION: G.R. NO. 141"84 DATE: AUGUST 1!, "000 FACTS: :nvo4in$ his o)ers as %ommander3in3 %hief under Sec. 18, 'rt. V:: of the %onstitution, the +resident directed the '&+ %hief of Staff and +=+ %hief to coordinate )ith each other for the ro er de "oyment and uti"iDation of the Marines to assist the +=+ in reventin$ or su ressin$ crimina" or "a)"ess vio"ence. /he +resident dec"ared that the services of the Marines in the anti3crime cam ai$n are mere"y tem orary in nature and for a reasonab"e eriod on"y, unti" such time )hen the situation sha"" have im roved. /he :(+ fi"ed a etition see4in$ to dec"are the de "oyment of the +hi"i ine Marines nu"" and void and unconstitutiona". ISSUE: E1F 1hether or not the +resident5s factua" determination of the necessity of ca""in$

basic civi" ri$hts and individua" freedoms, and thus necessitatin$ safe$uards by %on$ress and revie) by the %ourt. :n vie) of the constitutiona" intent to $ive the +resident fu"" discretionary o)er to determine the necessity of ca""in$ out the armed forces, it is incumbent u on the etitioner to sho) that the +resident5s decision is tota""y bereft of factua" basis. /he resent etition fai"s to dischar$e such heavy burden, as there is no evidence to su ort the assertion that there e-ists no 6ustification for ca""in$ out the armed forces. /he %ourt disa$rees to the contention that by the de "oyment of the Marines, the civi"ian tas4 of "a) enforcement is Ami"itariDedB in vio"ation of Sec. 3, 'rt. :: of the %onstitution. /he de "oyment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civi"ian su remacy c"ause. /he ca""in$ of the Marines constitutes ermissib"e use of mi"itary assets for civi"ian "a) enforcement. /he "oca" o"ice forces are the ones in char$e of the visibi"ity atro"s at a"" times, the rea" authority be"on$in$ to the +=+ Moreover, the de "oyment of the Marines to assist the +=+ does not unma4e the civi"ian character of the o"ice force. /he rea" authority in the o erations is "od$ed )ith the head of a civi"ian institution, the +=+, and not )ith the mi"itary. Since none of the Marines )as incor orated or en"isted as members of the +=+, there can be no a ointment to civi"ian osition to s ea4 of. 2ence, the de "oyment of the Marines in the 6oint visibi"ity atro"s does not destroy the civi"ian character of the +=+. TITLE: LACSON VS. PEREZ

+resident Maca a$a"3'rroyo dec"ared a State of @ebe""ion E+roc"amation =o. 38F on May 1, .001 as )e"" as 8enera" Order =o. 1 orderin$ the '&+ and the +=+ to su ress the rebe""ion in the =%@. 1arrant"ess arrests of severa" a""e$ed "eaders and romoters of the Arebe""ionB )ere thereafter effected. +etitioner fi"ed for rohibition, in6unction, mandamus and habeas cor us )ith an a "ication for the issuance of tem orary restrainin$ order and?or )rit of re"iminary in6unction. +etitioners assai" the dec"aration of +roc. =o. 38 and the )arrant"ess arrests a""e$ed"y effected by virtue thereof. +etitioners furthermore ray that the a ro riate court, )herein the information a$ainst them )ere fi"ed, )ou"d desist arrai$nment and tria" unti" this instant etition is reso"ved. /hey a"so contend that they are a""e$ed"y faced )ith im endin$ )arrant"ess arrests and un"a)fu" restraint bein$ that ho"d de arture orders )ere issued a$ainst them. ISSUE: U 1hether or =ot +roc"amation =o. 38 is va"id, a"on$ )ith the )arrant"ess arrests and ho"d de arture orders a""e$ed"y effected by the same7

based on +roc. =o. 38. +etitioner5s rayer for mandamus and rohibition is im ro er at this time because an individua" )arrant"ess"y arrested has adequate remedies in "a)G @u"e 11. of the @u"es of %ourt, rovidin$ for re"iminary investi$ation, 'rtic"e 1.> of the @evised +ena" %ode, rovidin$ for the eriod in )hich a )arrant"ess"y arrested erson must be de"ivered to the ro er 6udicia" authorities, other)ise the officer res onsib"e for such may be ena"iDed for the de"ay of the same. :f the detention shou"d have no "e$a" $round, the arrestin$ officer can be char$ed )ith arbitrary detention, not re6udicia" to c"aim of dama$es under 'rtic"e 3. of the %ivi" %ode. +etitioners )ere neither assai"in$ the va"idity of the sub6ect ho"d de arture orders, nor )ere they e- ressin$ any intention to "eave the country in the near future. /o dec"are the ho"d de arture orders nu"" and void ab initio must be made in the ro er roceedin$s initiated for that ur ose. +etitioners5 rayer for re"ief re$ardin$ their a""e$ed im endin$ )arrant"ess arrests is remature bein$ that no com "aints have been fi"ed a$ainst them for any crime, furthermore, the )rit of habeas cor us is unca""ed for since its ur ose is to re"ieve un"a)fu" restraint )hich +etitioners are not sub6ected to. +etition is dismissed. @es ondents, consistent and con$ruent )ith their underta4in$ ear"ier adverted to, to$ether )ith their a$ents, re resentatives, and a"" ersons actin$ in their beha"f, are hereby en6oined from arrestin$ +etitioners )ithout the required 6udicia" )arrants for a"" acts committed in re"ation to or in connection )ith the May 1, .001 sie$e of Ma"acaQan$. TITLE: DAVID VS. MACAPAGALARROYO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 171396 DATE: MA# 3, "006 FACTS: On &ebruary .<, .000, as the nation ce"ebrated the .0th 'nniversary of the ,dsa +eo "e +o)er :, +resident 'rroyo issued +residentia" +roc"amation =o. 101* E++ 101*F dec"arin$ a state of nationa" emer$ency. On the same day, the +resident issued 8enera" Order =o. > E8.O. =o. >F im "ementin$ ++ 101*. /he ro-imate cause behind the e-ecutive issuances )as the cons iracy amon$ some mi"itary officers, "eftist insur$ents of the =e) +eo "e5s 'rmy E=+'F, and some members of the o"itica" o osition in a "ot to unseat or assassinate +resident 'rroyo. /hey considered the aim to oust or assassinate the +resident and ta4e3over the rei$ns of $overnment as a c"ear and resent dan$er. '"" ro$rams and activities re"ated to the .0th anniversary ce"ebration of ,dsa +eo "e +o)er : are cance""ed. Ki4e)ise, a"" ermits to ho"d ra""ies issued ear"ier by the "oca" $overnments are revo4ed. Justice Secretary @au" 8onDa"es stated that o"itica" ra""ies, )hich to the +resident5s mind )ere or$aniDed for ur oses of destabi"iDation, are cance""ed. +residentia" %hief of Staff Michae" Cefensor announced that A)arrant"ess arrests and ta4e3over of faci"ities, inc"udin$ media, can a"ready be im "emented.B Curin$ the dis ersa" of the ra""yists a"on$ ,CS', o"ice arrested E)ithout )arrantF etitioner @ando"f S. Cavid, a rofessor at the #niversity of the +hi"i ines and ne)s a er co"umnist. ,-act"y one )ee4 after the dec"aration of a state of nationa" emer$ency, the +resident "ifted ++ 101* by issuin$ +roc"amation =o. 10.1.

THE COURTS RULING: +resident Maca a$a"3'rroyo ordered the "iftin$ of +roc. =o. 38 on May 0, .000, accordin$"y the instant etition has been rendered moot and academic. @es ondents have dec"ared that the Justice Ce artment and the o"ice authorities intend to obtain re$u"ar )arrants of arrests from the courts for a"" acts committed rior to and unti" May 1, .001. #nder Section >, @u"e 113 of the @u"es of %ourt, authorities may on"y resort to )arrant"ess arrests of ersons sus ected of rebe""ion in su ressin$ the rebe""ion if the circumstances so )arrant, thus the )arrant"ess arrests are not

CITATION: 3!7 SCRA 7!6 G.R. NO. 147780 DATE: MA# 10, "001 FACTS:

ISSUE: U 1hether or not the issuance of ++ 10.1 renders the etitions moot and academic7

THE COURTS RULING: /he %ourt ho"ds that +resident 'rroyo5s issuance of ++ 10.1 did not render the resent etitions moot and academic. Curin$ the ei$ht E8F days that ++ 101* )as o erative, the o"ice officers, accordin$ to etitioners, committed i""e$a" acts in im "ementin$ it. 're ++ 101* and 8.O. =o. > constitutiona" or va"id7 Co they 6ustify these a""e$ed i""e$a" acts7 /hese are the vita" issues that must be reso"ved in the resent etitions. :t must be stressed that Aan unconstitutiona" act is not a "a), it confers no ri$hts, it im oses no duties, it affords no rotection9 it is in "e$a" contem "ation, ino erative.B /he Amoot and academicB rinci "e is not a ma$ica" formu"a that can automatica""y dissuade the courts in reso"vin$ a case. %ourts )i"" decide cases, other)ise moot and academic, ifG first, there is a $rave vio"ation of the %onstitution9 second, the e-ce tiona" character of the situation and the aramount ub"ic interest is invo"ved9 third, )hen constitutiona" issue raised requires formu"ation of contro""in$ rinci "es to $uide the bench, the bar, and the ub"ic9 and fourth, the case is ca ab"e of re etition yet evadin$ revie). '"" the fore$oin$ e-ce tions are resent here and 6ustify this %ourt5s assum tion of 6urisdiction over the instant etitions. +etitioners a""e$ed that the issuance of ++ 101* and 8.O. =o. > vio"ates the %onstitution. /here is no question that the issues bein$ raised affect the ub"ic5s interest, invo"vin$ as they do the eo "e5s basic ri$hts to freedom of e- ression, of assemb"y and of the ress. Moreover, the %ourt has the duty to

formu"ate $uidin$ and contro""in$ constitutiona" rece ts, doctrines or ru"es. :t has the symbo"ic function of educatin$ the bench and the bar, and in the resent etitions, the mi"itary and the o"ice, on the e-tent of the rotection $iven by constitutiona" $uarantees. 'nd "ast"y, res ondents5 contested actions are ca ab"e of re etition. %ertain"y, the etitions are sub6ect to 6udicia" revie). TITLE: AMPATUAN ET AL VS. PUNO

in3%hief. /he determination of the need to e-ercise this o)er rests so"e"y on her )isdom. /he +resident mere"y de"e$ated her su ervisory o)ers over the '@MM to the C:K8 Secretary )ho )as her a"ter e$o any )ay. /he de"e$ation )as necessary to faci"itate the investi$ation of the mass 4i""in$s. ISSUE: U 1hether or not +resident 'rroyo inva"id"y e-ercised emer$ency o)ers )hen she ca""ed out the '&+ and the +=+ to revent and su ress a"" incidents of "a)"ess vio"ence in Ma$uindanao, Su"tan Mudarat, and %otabato %ity7 1hether or not there is factua" basis on the ca""in$ out of the 'rmed &orces7

abuse of discretion, the %ourt )i"" accord res ect to the +resident5s 6ud$ment.

CITATION: G.R. NO. 190"!9 DATE: 1UNE 7, "011 FACTS: On =ovember .<, .009, the day after the $ruesome massacre of >* men and )omen, then +resident 8"oria Maca a$a"3 'rroyo issued +roc"amation 19<0, "acin$ Athe +rovinces of Ma$uindanao and Su"tan Mudarat and the %ity of %otabato under a state of emer$ency.B She directed the '&+ and the +=+ Ato underta4e such measures as may be a""o)ed by the %onstitution and by "a) to revent and su ress a"" incidents of "a)"ess vio"enceB in the named "aces. #nder 'O .*3, she a"so de"e$ated to the C:K8 the su ervision of the '@MM. /he etitioners c"aimed that the +resident5s issuances encroached the '@MM5s autonomy, that it constitutes an inva"id e-ercise of emer$ency o)ers, and that the +resident had no factua" basis for dec"arin$ a state of emer$ency, es ecia""y in the +rovince of Su"tan Mudarat and the %ity of %otabato, )here no critica" vio"ent incidents occurred. /hey )ant +roc. 19<0 and 'O .*3 be dec"ared unconstitutiona". /he res ondents, ho)ever, said that its ur ose )as not to de rive the '@MM of its autonomy, but to restore eace and order in sub6ect "aces. :t is ursuant to her Aca""in$ outB o)er as %ommander3

TITLE:

NICOLAS VS. ROMULO

CITATION: G.R. NO. 17!888 DATE: FEBRUAR# 11, "009 FACTS: 2erein res ondent, Kance %or ora" Canie" Smith, is a member of the #nited States 'rmed &orces. 2e )as char$ed )ith the crime of ra e committed a$ainst a &i"i ina, SuDette S. =ico"as. +ursuant to the Visitin$ &orces '$reement EV&'F bet)een the @e ub"ic of the +hi"i ines and the #nited States, the #nited States, at its request, )as $ranted custody of defendant Smith endin$ the roceedin$s. Curin$ the tria", the #S 8overnment faithfu""y com "ied )ith its underta4in$ to brin$ defendant Smith to the tria" court every time his resence )as required. ,ventua""y, the @e$iona" /ria" %ourt rendered its Cecision, findin$ defendant Smith $ui"ty. 2e sha"" serve his sentence in the faci"ities that sha"" be a$reed u on by a ro riate +hi"i ine and #nited States ursuant to the V&'. +endin$ a$reement on such faci"ities, accused is hereby tem orari"y committed to the Ma4ati %ity Jai". 2o)ever, defendant )as ta4en out of the Ma4ati 6ai" by a contin$ent of +hi"i ine "a) enforcement a$ents, and brou$ht to a faci"ity for detention under the contro"

THE COURTS RULING: /he +resident did not roc"aim a nationa" emer$ency, on"y a state of emer$ency in the three "aces mentioned. 'nd she did not act ursuant to any "a) enacted by %on$ress that authoriDed her to e-ercise e-traordinary o)ers. /he ca""in$ out of the armed forces to revent or su ress "a)"ess vio"ence in such "aces is a o)er that the %onstitution direct"y vests in the +resident. She did not need a con$ressiona" authority to e-ercise the same. /he +resident5s ca"" on the armed forces to revent or su ress "a)"ess vio"ence s rin$s from the o)er vested in her under Section 18, 'rtic"e V:: of the %onstitution. 1hi"e it is true that the %ourt may inquire into the factua" bases for the +resident5s e-ercise of the above o)er, un"ess it is sho)n that such determination )as attended by $rave

of the #nited States $overnment, rovided for under ne) a$reements bet)een the +hi"i ines and the #nited States, referred to as the @omu"o3Menney '$reement. /his a$reement rovides that in accordance )ith the Visitin$ &orces '$reement si$ned, Smith, #nited States Marine %or s, be returned to #nited States mi"itary custody at the #.S. ,mbassy in Mani"a. +etitioners contend that the +hi"i ines shou"d have custody of Smith because if they )ou"d a""o) such transfer of custody of an accused to a forei$n o)er is to rovide for a different ru"e of rocedure for that accused. /he equa" rotection c"ause of the %onstitution is a"so vio"ated. ISSUE: U 1hether or =ot there is a vio"ation of the equa" rotection c"ause7

's a resu"t, the situation invo"ved is not one in )hich the o)er of this %ourt to ado t ru"es of rocedure is curtai"ed or vio"ated, but rather one in )hich, as is norma""y encountered around the )or"d, the "a)s Einc"udin$ ru"es of rocedureF of one State do not e-tend or a "y P e-ce t to the e-tent a$reed u on P to sub6ects of another State due to the reco$nition of e-traterritoria" immunity $iven to such bodies as visitin$ forei$n armed forces. ' "yin$, ho)ever, the rovisions of V&', the %ourt finds that there is a different treatment )hen it comes to detention as a$ainst custody. :t is c"ear that the arties to the V&' reco$niDed the difference bet)een custody durin$ the tria" and detention after conviction, because they rovided for a s ecific arran$ement to cover detention. 'nd this s ecific arran$ement c"ear"y states not on"y that the detention sha"" be carried out in faci"ities a$reed on by authorities of both arties, but a"so that the detention sha"" be ;by +hi"i ine authorities.; /herefore, the @omu"o3 Menney '$reements of Cecember 19 and .., .000, )hich are a$reements on the detention of the accused in the #nited States ,mbassy, are not in accord )ith the V&' itse"f because such detention is not ;by +hi"i ine authorities.; @es ondents shou"d therefore com "y )ith the V&' and ne$otiate )ith re resentatives of the #nited States to)ards an a$reement on detention faci"ities under +hi"i ine authorities as mandated by 'rt. V, Sec. 10 of the V&'. /he Visitin$ &orces '$reement EV&'F bet)een the @e ub"ic of the +hi"i ines and the #nited States, )as #+2,KC as constitutiona", but the @omu"o3Menney '$reements )ere C,%K'@,C not in accordance )ith the V&'. TITLE: BAYAN VS. ZAMORA

CITATION: 34" SCRA 449 G.R. NO. 138!70 DATE: OCTOBER 10, "000 FACTS: /he @e ub"ic of the +hi"i ines and the #nited States of 'merica entered into an a$reement ca""ed the Visitin$ &orces '$reement EV&'F. /he a$reement )as treated as a treaty by the +hi"i ine $overnment and )as ratified by then3 +resident Jose h ,strada )ith the concurrence of .?3 of the tota" membershi of the +hi"i ine Senate. /he V&' defines the treatment of #.S. troo s and ersonne" visitin$ the +hi"i ines. :t rovides for the $uide"ines to $overn such visits, and further defines the ri$hts of the #.S. and the +hi"i ine $overnments in the matter of crimina" 6urisdiction, movement of vesse" and aircraft, im ortation and e- ortation of equi ment, materia"s and su "ies. +etitioners ar$ued, inter a"ia, that the V&' vio"ates V.>, 'rtic"e LV::: of the 198* %onstitution, )hich rovides that Aforei$n mi"itary bases, troo s, or faci"ities sha"" not be a""o)ed in the +hi"i ines e-ce t under a treaty du"y concurred in by the Senate . . . and reco$niDed as a treaty by the other contractin$ State.B ISSUE: U 1hether or not the V&' is unconstitutiona"7

Section .>, 'rtic"e LV::: disa""o)s forei$n mi"itary bases, troo s, or faci"ities in the country, un"ess the fo""o)in$ conditions are sufficient"y met, viDG EaF it must be under a treaty9 EbF the treaty must be du"y concurred in by the Senate and, )hen so required by con$ress, ratified by a ma6ority of the votes cast by the eo "e in a nationa" referendum9 and EcF reco$niDed as a treaty by the other contractin$ state. /here is no dis ute as to the resence of the first t)o requisites in the case of the V&'. /he concurrence handed by the Senate throu$h @eso"ution =o. 18 is in accordance )ith the rovisions of the %onstitution the rovision in Nin V.>, 'rtic"e LV:::O requirin$ ratification by a ma6ority of the votes cast in a nationa" referendum bein$ unnecessary since %on$ress has not required it. /his %ourt is of the firm vie) that the hrase Areco$niDed as a treatyB means that the other contractin$ arty acce ts or ac4no)"ed$es the a$reement as a treaty. /o require the other contractin$ state, the #nited States of 'merica in this case, to submit the V&' to the #nited States Senate for concurrence ursuant to its %onstitution, is to accord strict meanin$ to the hrase. 1e""3entrenched is the rinci "e that the )ords used in the %onstitution are to be $iven their ordinary meanin$ e-ce t )here technica" terms are em "oyed, in )hich case the si$nificance thus attached to them revai"s. :ts "an$ua$e shou"d be understood in the sense they have in common use. Moreover, it is inconsequentia" )hether the #nited States treats the V&' on"y as an e-ecutive a$reement because, under internationa" "a), an e-ecutive a$reement is as bindin$ as a treaty. /o be sure, as "on$ as the V&' ossesses the e"ements of an a$reement under

THE COURTS RULING: /he equa" rotection c"ause is not vio"ated, because there is a substantia" basis for a different treatment of a member of a forei$n mi"itary armed forces a""o)ed to enter our territory and a"" other accused. /he ru"e in internationa" "a) is that a forei$n armed forces a""o)ed to enter one5s territory is immune from "oca" 6urisdiction, e-ce t to the e-tent a$reed u on. /he Status of &orces '$reements invo"vin$ forei$n mi"itary units around the )or"d vary in terms and conditions, accordin$ to the situation of the arties invo"ved, and ref"ect their bar$ainin$ o)er. (ut the rinci "e remains, i.e., the receivin$ State can e-ercise 6urisdiction over the forces of the sendin$ State on"y to the e-tent a$reed u on by the arties.

THE COURTS RULING: N/he %ourt C:SM:SS,C the conso"idated etitions, he"d that the etitioners did not commit $rave abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutiona"ity of the V&'.O =O, the V&' is not unconstitutiona".

internationa" "a), the said a$reement is to be ta4en equa""y as a treaty. /he records revea" that the #nited States 8overnment, throu$h 'mbassador /homas %. 2ubbard, has stated that the #nited States $overnment has fu""y committed to "ivin$ u to the terms of the V&'. &or as "on$ as the #nited States of 'merica acce ts or ac4no)"ed$es the V&' as a treaty, and binds itse"f further to com "y )ith its ob"i$ations under the treaty, there is indeed mar4ed com "iance )ith the mandate of the %onstitution. TITLE: PIMENTEL VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CITATION: G.R. NO. 1!8088 DATE: 1UL# 6, "00! FACTS: /he @ome Statute estab"ished the :%% )hich Asha"" have the o)er to e-ercise its 6urisdiction over ersons for the most serious crimes of internationa" concern --- and sha"" be com "ementary to the nationa" crimina" 6urisdictions.B /he +hi"i ines, throu$h %har$e d5 'ffairs ,nrique '. Mana"o of the +hi"i ine Mission to the #=, si$ned the @ome Statute on Cec. .8, .000. :ts rovisions, ho)ever, require that it be sub6ect to ratification, acce tance or a rova" of the si$natory states. +etitioners no) fi"e this etition to com e" the Office of the +resident to transmit the si$ned co y of the @ome Statute to the Senate for its concurrence.

C&' have a ministeria" duty to transmit to the Senate the co y of the @ome Statute7 THE COURTS RULING: :n our system of $overnment, the +resident, bein$ the head of state, is re$arded as the so"e or$an and authority in e-terna" re"ations and is the country5s so"e re resentative )ith forei$n nations. 's the chief architect of forei$n o"icy, the +resident acts as the country5s mouth iece )ith res ect to internationa" affairs. 2ence, the +resident is vested )ith the authority to dea" )ith forei$n states and $overnments, e-tend or )ithho"d reco$nition, maintain di "omatic re"ations, enter into treaties, and other)ise transact the business of forei$n re"ations. :n the rea"m of treaty3 ma4in$, the +resident has the so"e authority to ne$otiate )ith other states. =onethe"ess, )hi"e the +resident has the so"e authority to ne$otiate and enter into treaties, the %onstitution rovides a "imitation to his o)er by requirin$ the concurrence of .?3 of a"" the members of the Senate for the va"idity of the treaty entered into by him. Section .1, 'rtic"e V:: of the 198* %onstitution rovides that Ano treaty or internationa" a$reement sha"" be va"id and effective un"ess concurred in by at "east t)o3thirds of a"" the Members of the Senate.B /he artici ation of the "e$is"ative branch in the treaty3ma4in$ rocess )as deemed essentia" to rovide a chec4 on the e-ecutive in the fie"d of forei$n re"ations. (y requirin$ the concurrence of the "e$is"ature in the treaties entered into by the +resident, the %onstitution ensures a hea"thy system of chec4s and ba"ance necessary in the nation5s ursuit of o"itica" maturity and $ro)th.

ISSUE: U 1hether or not the ,-ecutive Secretary and the

:t shou"d be underscored that the si$nin$ of the treaty and the ratification are t)o se arate and distinct ste s in the treaty3 ma4in$ rocess. 's ear"ier discussed, the si$nature is rimari"y intended as a means of authenticatin$ the instrument and as a symbo" of the $ood faith of the arties. :t is usua""y erformed by the state5s authoriDed re resentative in the di "omatic mission. @atification, on the other hand, is the forma" act by )hich a state confirms and acce ts the rovisions of a treaty conc"uded by its re resentative. :t is $enera""y he"d to be an e-ecutive act, underta4en by the head of the state or of the $overnment. +etitioners5 submission that the +hi"i ines is bound under treaty "a) and internationa" "a) to ratify the treaty )hich it has si$ned is )ithout basis. /he si$nature does not si$nify the fina" consent of the state to the treaty. :t is the ratification that binds the state to the rovisions thereof. :n fact, the @ome Statute itse"f requires that the si$nature of the re resentatives of the states be sub6ect to ratification, acce tance or a rova" of the si$natory states. @atification is the act by )hich the rovisions of a treaty are forma""y confirmed and a roved by a State. (y ratifyin$ a treaty si$ned in its beha"f, a state e- resses its )i""in$ness to be bound by the rovisions of such treaty. 'fter the treaty is si$ned by the state5s re resentative, the +resident, bein$ accountab"e to the eo "e, is burdened )ith the res onsibi"ity and the duty to carefu""y study the contents of the treaty and ensure that they are not inimica" to the interest of the state and its eo "e. /hus, the +resident has the discretion even after the si$nin$ of the treaty by the +hi"i ine re resentative )hether or not to ratify the same. /he Vienna %onvention on the Ka) of /reaties does not contem "ate to defeat or even restrain this o)er of the head of states. :f that )ere so, the requirement of ratification of treaties )ou"d be oint"ess and futi"e. :t has been he"d that a state

has no "e$a" or even mora" duty to ratify a treaty )hich has been si$ned by its "eni otentiaries. /here is no "e$a" ob"i$ation to ratify a treaty, but it $oes )ithout sayin$ that the refusa" must be based on substantia" $rounds and not on su erficia" or )himsica" reasons. Other)ise, the other state )ou"d be 6ustified in ta4in$ offense. :t shou"d be em hasiDed that under our %onstitution, the o)er to ratify is vested in the +resident, sub6ect to the concurrence of the Senate. /he ro"e of the Senate, ho)ever, is "imited on"y to $ivin$ or )ithho"din$ its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. 2ence, it is )ithin the authority of the +resident to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, havin$ secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. '"thou$h the refusa" of a state to ratify a treaty )hich has been si$ned in its beha"f is a serious ste that shou"d not be ta4en "i$ht"y, such decision is )ithin the com etence of the +resident a"one, )hich cannot be encroached by this %ourt via a )rit of mandamus. /his %ourt has no 6urisdiction over actions see4in$ to en6oin the +resident in the erformance of his officia" duties. /he %ourt, therefore, cannot issue the )rit of mandamus rayed for by the etitioners as it is beyond its 6urisdiction to com e" the e-ecutive branch of the $overnment to transmit the si$ned te-t of @ome Statute to the Senate.
TITLE: GO TEK VS. DEPORTATION BOARD CITATION: 79 SCRA 17 G.R. NO. L-23846 DATE: SEPT 9, 1977 FACTS: -the Chief Prosecutor of the Deportation Board filed a complaint against Go Tek, a Chinaman, residing in Ilagan, Isa ela and in Sta. Cru!, "anila.-it #as alleged in the complaint that in Decem er $%&', a num er of (BI agents searched an office on )* Donnel St. in Sta. Cru!, #hich #as elie+ed to e the head,uarters of a guerilla unit of the -.mergenc/ Intelligence Section, 0rm/ of the

1nited States- and among those arrested #as Go Tek.- Go Tek #as an alleged sector commander and intelligence and record officer of that guerilla unit.0lso, as further alleged, there #ere se+eral fake dollars found in his possession and that he had +iolated 0rt. $&2 of the 3PC and rendered himself an undesira le alien.-The prosecutor pra/ed that after trial the Board should recommend to the President of the Philippines the immediate deportation of Go Tek as an undesira le alien, and that -his presence in this countr/ ha+ing een, and #ill al#a/s e and a menace to the peace , #elfare, and securit/ of the communit/-.-Go Tek filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint #as premature ecause there #as a pending case against him in the cit/ fiscal*s office of "anila for +iolation of 0rticle $&2.4e contended that the oard had no 5urisdiction to tr/ the case in +ie# of the o iter dictum in 6ua Chee Gan that the oard ma/ deport aliens onl/ on the grounds specified in the la#.-The Board, in its resolution of 0pril 7$, $%&8 denied Go Tek*s motion. The Board reasoned out that a con+iction is not a prere,uisite efore the State m/ e9ercise its rights to deport an undesira le alien and that the Board is onl/ a fact finding od/ #hose function is to make a report and recommendation to the President in #hom is lodged the e9clusi+e po#er to deport an alien or a deportation proceeding.-Go Tek filed in the Court of :irst Instance of "anila a prohi ition action against the Board C:I ruled in fa+or of Go Tek, citing the o iter dictum in 6ua Chee Gan, stating that mere possession of fake dollars is not a ground for deportation under the Immigration ;a#< and that under section '=>'? of the la# efore an alien ma/ e deported for ha+ing een con+icted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one /ear or more for a crime in+ol+ing moral turpitude a con+iction is and that since Go Tek had not een con+icted of the offense punished in article $&2,the deportation #as premature.-The Board appealed to the SC alleging that the decision #as contrar/ to la#.-The parties stipulated that the Deportation Board is an agenc/ of the President of the Philippines charged #ith the in+estigation of undesira le aliens and tore port and recommend proper action on the asis of its findings therein ISSUE:

THE COURTS RULING: The President*s po#er to deport aliens and the in+estigation of aliens su 5ect to deportation are pro+ided for in the follo#ing pro+isions of the 3e+ised 0dministrati+e CodeBS.C. &%. Deportation of su 5ect of foreign po#er. C 0 su 5ect of a foreign po#er residing in the Philippine Islands shall not e deported e9pelled, or e9cluded from said Islands or repatriated to his o#n countr/ / the Go+ernor-General e9cept upon prior in+estigator, conducted / said .9ecuti+e or his authori!ed agent, of the ground upon #hich such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall e allo#ed not less than three da/s for the preparation of his defense. 4e shall also ha+e the right to e heard / himself or counsel, to produce #itnesses in his o#n ehalf, and to cross-e9amine the opposing #itnesses. )n the other hand, section '= of the Immigration ;a# pro+ides that certain aliens ma/ e arrested upon the #arrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of an/ other officer designated / him for the purpose and deported upon the Commissioner*s #arrant -after a determination / the Board of Commissioners of the e9istence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien.- Thirteen classes of aliens #ho ma/ e deported / the Commissioner are specifiedin section '=.So, under e9isting la#< the deportation of an undesira le alien ma/ e effected>$? / order of the President, after due in+estigation, pursuant to section &% of the 3e+ised 0dministrati+e Code and>7? / the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners under section '= of the immigration ;a#. The State has the inherent po#er to deport undesira le aliens .That po#er ma/ e e9ercised / the Chief .9ecuti+e -#hen he deems such action necessar/ for the peace and domestic tran,uilit/ of the nation-. 0ccording to Dustice Dohnson, that #hen the Chief .9ecuti+e finds that there are aliens #hose continued in the countr/ is in5urious to the pu lic interest, he ma/, e+en in the a sence of e9press la#, deport them. The right of a countr/ to e9pel or deport aliens ecause their continued presence is detrimental to pu lic #elfare is a solute and un,ualified .The Deportation Board is composed of the 1ndersecretar/ of Dustice as chairman , the solicitor General, and a representati+e of the Secretar/ of (ational Defense >.9ecuti+e )rder (o. 8EE dated Dune 7E, $%E$, 8= ).G. 72"?.Section &% and .9ecuti+e )rder (o. '%2 pro+ides that, the

Deportation Board, do not specif/ the grounds for deportation. Paragraph >a? of .9ecuti+e )rder (o. '%2 merel/ pro+ides that -the Deportation Board, motu proprio or upon complaint of an/ person is authori!ed to conduct in+estigations in the manner prescri ed in section &% of the 3e+ised 0dministrati+e Code to determine #hether a su 5ect of a foreign po#er in the Philippines is an undesira le alien or not, and thereafter to recommend to the President of the Philippines the deportation of such alien. 0s o ser+ed / Dustice ;a rador, there is no legal nor constitutional pro+ision defining the po#er to deport aliens ecause the intention of the la# is to grant the Chief .9ecuti+e -full discretion to determine #hether an alien*s residence in the countr/ is so undesira le as to affect or in5ure the securit/ #elfare or interest of the state. The ad5udication of facts upon #hich deportation is predicated also de+ol+es on the Chief .9ecuti+e #hose decision is final and e9ecutor/.-The reasons ma/ e summed up in a single #ordB the pu lic interest. 0lso, It is fundamental that an e9ecuti+e order for deportation is not dependent on a prior 5udicial con+iction in a criminal case. TITLE: BARROQUINTO VS. FERNANDEZ CITATION: 82 PHIL 642 DATE: JANUAR 21, 1949 FACTS: Dimene! and Barrio,uinto #ere charged for murder for the killings the/ made during the #ar. The case #as proceeded against Dimene! ecause Barrio,uinto #as no#here to e found. Dimene! #as then sentenced to life imprisonment. Before the period for perfecting an appeal had e9pired, the defendant Dimene! ecame a#are of Proclamation (o. 2, #hich grants amnest/ in fa+or of all persons #ho ma/ e charged #ith an act penali!ed under the 3PC in furtherance of the resistance to the enem/ or against persons aiding in the #ar efforts of the enem/. Barrio,uinto learned a out the proclamation and he surfaced in order to in+oke amnest/ as #ell. 4o#e+er, Commissioner :ernande! of the $8 th 0mnest/ Commission refused to process the amnest/ re,uest of the t#o accused ecause the t#o refused to admit to the crime as charged. Dimene! F Barrio,uinto in fact said that a certain Tolentino #as the one #ho committed the crime eing charged to them. ISSUE: G.R. NO. L-1278

@hether or not admission of guilt is necessar/ in amnest/A

THE COURTS RULING: Pardon is granted / the President and as such it is a pri+ate act #hich must e pleaded and pro+ed / the person pardoned, ecause the courts take no notice thereof< #hile amnest/ / Proclamation of the President #ith the concurrence of Congress, and it is a pu lic act of #hich the courts should take 5udicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after con+iction< #hile amnest/ is granted to classes of persons or communities #ho ma/ e guilt/ of political offenses, generall/ efore or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after con+iction. Pardon looks for#ard and relie+es the offender from the conse,uences of an offense of #hich he has een con+icted, that is, it a olishes or forgi+es the punishment, and for that reason it does Gnor #ork the restoration of the rights to hold pu lic office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights e e9pressl/ restored / the terms of the pardon,H and it Gin no case e9empts the culprit from the pa/ment of the ci+il indemnit/ imposed upon him / the sentenceH >art '&, 3PC?. @hile amnest/ looks ack#ard and a olishes and puts into o li+ion the offense itself, it so o+erlooks and o literates the offense #ith #hich he is charged that the person released / amnest/ stands efore the la# precisel/ as though he had committed no offense. In order to entitle a person to the enefits of the 0mnest/ Proclamation, it is not necessar/ that he should, as a condition precedent or sine ,ua non, admit ha+ing committed the criminal act or offense #ith #hich he is charged, and allege the amnest/ as a defense< it is sufficient that the e+idence, either of the complainant or the accused, sho#s that the offense committed comes #ithin the terms of said 0mnest/ Proclamation. 4ence, it is not correct to sa/ that Gin+ocation of the enefits of amnest/ is in the nature of a plea of confession and a+oidance.H 0lthough the accused does not confess the imputation against him, he ma/ e declared / the courts or the 0mnest/ Commissions entitled to the enefits of the amnest/. :or, #hether or not he admits or confesses ha+ing committed the offense #ith #hich he is charged, the Commissions should, if necessar/ or re,uested / the interested part/, conduct summar/ hearing of the #itnesses oth for the complainants and the accused, on #hether he has committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enem/, or against persons aiding

@hether the President has the po#er to deport undesira le aliensA

in the #ar efforts of the enem/, and decide #hether he is entitled to the enefits of amnest/ and to e Gregarded as a patriot or hero #ho ha+e rendered in+alua le ser+ices to the nation,H or not, in accordance #ith the terms of the 0mnest/ Proclamation. Since the 0mnest/ Proclamation is a pu lic act, the courts as #ell as the 0mnest/ Commissions created there / should take notice of the terms of said Proclamation and appl/ the enefits granted therein to cases coming #ithin their pro+ince or 5urisdiction, #hether pleaded or claimed / the person charged #ith such offenses or not, if the e+idence presented sho#s that the accused is entitled to said enefits.