DE CASTRO V. JBC, G.R. No.
191342 April 2, 2010 (CASE petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court
DIGEST)CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST
TOPIC: POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE
(Enactment of the DE CASTRO v. JBC case by San Beda College of
Law, Section 1-N)
ATTY. AMADOR Z. TOLENTINO JR., (IBP Governor - Southern
Luzon), and ATTY. ROLAND B. INTING (IBP Governor - Eastern
Visayas), petitioners, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC),
respondent.
G. R. No. 191342, April 20, 2010.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
This is a consolidated case which assails the constitutionality of the
action of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo by appointing a
Chief Justice 7 days after the Presidential election in 2010.
After the compulsory retirement of former Chief Justice Reynato Puno,
the position of Chief Justice was left vacant. Section 4 (1), in relation to
Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution states that, "vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from occurrence thereof," from a, "List of
nominees prepared by the Judicial Bar Council for every
vacancy" furthermore, Section 15, Article VII was also taken into
consideration which prohibits the President or the Acting President
from making appointments within two (2) months immediately before
the next Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued
vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety.
The JBC agreed that the vacant position must be filled and there were
five (5) candidates for the position from the most senior of the
Associates of the court and one of them is Associate Justice Reynato
C. Corona who was chosen by the President and was appointed for
the position of Chief Justice.
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the incumbent
President may appoint the next Chief Justice since the Constitution do
not apply to the Supreme Court. If the framers of the Constitution
intended the prohibition to apply in the Supreme Court then it should
have expressly stated it in the Constitution.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the President can appoint the successor of the
Chief Justice..
RULING:
Yes, the President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice as the
prohibitions in the Constitution.
If the framers of the Constitution intends that the prohibition shall apply
to the appointment of Chief Justice, then they should have expressly
stated it in the Constitution under Section 15 (THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT), Article VII and Section 4 (1), Article VIII (JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT).
Section 14, Section 15 and Section 16 refers only to the appointments
made in the Executive Department.
CASE DIGEST : Restituto Ynot Vs IAC
G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987 RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner, vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE STATION
COMMANDER, INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, BAROTAC
NUEVO, ILOILO and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents.
On January 13, 1984, the petitioner transported six carabaos in a
pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when the same was confiscated by
the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for the violation
of E.O. 626-A. A case was filed by the petitioner questioning the
constitutionality of executive order and the recovery of the carabaos.
After considering the merits of the case, the confiscation was sustained
and the court declined to rule on the constitutionality issue. The
but it also upheld the ruling of RTC.
Issue:Is E.O. 626-A unconstitutional?
Ruling: The Respondent contends that it is a valid exercise of police
power to justify EO 626-A amending EO 626 in asic rule prohibiting the
slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. The supreme
court said that The reasonable connection between the means
employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned
measure is missing the Supreme Court do not see how the prohibition
of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos can prevent their
indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere,
with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Obviously,
retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter
there, any more than moving them to another province will make it
easier to kill them there
The Supreme Court found E.O. 626-A unconstitutional. The executive
act defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately
imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. Due process
was not properly observed. In the instant case, the carabaos were
arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander, were returned
to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and
given a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. The measure struck at once
and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be
heard, thus denying due process.
FACTS:
Former President Marcos, after his and his family spent three year
exile in Hawaii, USA, sought to return to the Philippines. The call is
about to request of Marcos family to order the respondents to issue
travel order to them and to enjoin the petition of the President's
decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to
the Philippines.
RULING:
Yes
According to Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: "The
executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines."
The phrase, however, does not define what is meant by executive
power although the same article tackles on exercises of certain powers
by the President such as appointing power during recess of the
Congress (S.16), control of all the executive departments, bureaus,
and offices (Section 17), power to grant reprieves, commutations, and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment (Section 19), treaty making power (Section 21), borrowing
power (Section 20), budgetary power (Section 22), informing
power (Section 23).
The Constitution may have grant powers to the President, it cannot be
said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the government that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition
asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
etc. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. Marcos and the
immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of
the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the
Philippines is guaranteed by the Billof Rights, specifically Sections 1
and 6. They contended that Pres. Aquinois without power to impair the
liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so within
the limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impair their right to
travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
They further assert that under international law, their right to return to
the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the
constitution, the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from
returning to the Philippines.
Held: "It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not
the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the
Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote.
Essentially, the right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to
one's country, a distinct right under international law, independent
fromalthough related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement
and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country,
and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.
What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement
and residence within the borders of each state". On the other hand, the
Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country,
including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by laws
protecting the national security, public order, public health or morals or
the separate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country
cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to
construe the limitations to the right to return to ones country in the
same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right
to travel.
The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel,
but it is a well considered view that the right to return may
be considered, as a generally accepted principle of International Law
and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse
of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos
and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare.
President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by
the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during
the past few years after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore
prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED.
MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS Art VII Sec 15
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President
shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety.cralaw
Grounds for disqualification
Article Ix b sec 6
Section 6. No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one
year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government
or any Government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their
subsidiaries.cralaw
Article Ix b sec 7
Section 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his
tenure.cralaw
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including Government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.cralaw
Article VII, Sec 13
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment
during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or
be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid
conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.cralaw
Article VI, Sec 13
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term
without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.cralaw
Article VI, Sec 7
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be
elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for
more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.cralaw
Article XI, Sec 11
Section 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term of
seven years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to run
for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation
from office.cralaw
Article IX B sec 1
Section 1. (1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil
Service Commission composed of a Chairman and two
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately
preceding their appointment.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a
term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a Commissioner for five
years, and another Commissioner for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.cralaw
Prohibitions and Inhibitions VP
1. Shall not receive increase
compensation during the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was
approved. (sec 6)
2. Shall not receive any other
emoluments from the government or any other
source during their tenure. (sec 6)
3. Unless otherwise provided in
the Constitution, shall not hold any other
employment during their tenure.
4. Shall not directly or indirectly
practice any other profession, participate in
any business, or be financially interested in
any contract with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the government or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries during their
tenure.
5. Strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office during
their tenure. (Section