LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Three are ex-officio and four are
When they impeach impeachable officers.
In the Sereno Case, the cooperative fact doctrine
apply.
Public officers may be de jure or de facto
1. De jure - qualified under the government
whether it is a legal position or not
2. De facto - the Supreme Court held that in all
cases involving them, all of their previous acts
are considered will be binding and valid.
Therefore all issued appointments of Sereno are
considered valid. As a de facto officer, all of her
votes in the JBC are valid. All of her decisions are
valid.
In the case of Francisco v. HOR, what is a
complaint initiated?
The Supreme Court held that initiation will start if
it is referred to the Committee on Justice. Because
sometimes, the complaint will not even elevate.
In the case of Ombudsman Gutierrez v. Speaker
Del Monte, can there be two complaints
simultaneously considered by the Committee on
Justice?
It can only take initial measures because the House
of Representatives revised the rules. They can
proceed as a joint referral with two complaints.
When they exercise their checks and balances
powers.
When they confirm the appointment of the
President through the Commission on
Appointments.
Who are the officers subject to the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments?
1. Heads of the Parties
2. Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of cornel to
naval captain
4. All members of the Constitutional
Commissions
5. Four regular members of the JBC
How many members are there in the JBC?
7 members.
regular members. The three ex-officio officers are
(1)Chief Justce as presiding officer, (2)Secretary of
Justice and (3)One representative of the Congress.
In the case of Chavez v. JBC, the Supreme Court
said that the Constitutiton must be interpreted
verba legis. When Justice Davide argued that “one
representative of the Congress” means that there
should be one representative in the House of the
Representatives and one from the Senate.
However, Chavez argued that and the Court agreed
that there should be one representative from both
the Senate and the House of the Representatives.
On the other hand, the regular member are
(1)Representative of the retired justices of the
Supreme Court, (2)Representative of the private
sectors, (3) Representative from the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines and (4) Law professor who need
not to teach in a law school because there are some
professors who teach law but not in a law school.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Presidential Immunity from suit with regards to
writ of Amparo and writ of habeas corpus
In the case of Rodriguez v. Arroyo, the writ of
amparo is an extraordinary and independent
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it
partakes of a summary proceeding that requires
only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
interim and permanent reliefs available to the
petitioner. Meanwhile, the writ of habeas data
provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s
right to control information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances where such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to
achieve unlawful ends. Supreme Court held that
this is curative because of missing persons or
possible victims of extra-judicial killings. In this
case where Arroyo was a respondent, the Supreme
Court allowed such because (1) it was a
presidential immunity from suit, (2) there was
nothing in the allegation that will mitigate that the
president had personal knowledge of the missing
person.
In the case of BOAC v. Cadapan, there is no need
to file a motion for execution of a writ of amparo
or a habeas corpus. An amparo proceeding is not
criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal
liability of individuals or entities involved. Neither
does it partake of a civil or administrative suit.
Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct
specified courses of action to government agencies
to safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty
and security of aggrieved individuals. Contrary to
the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to
file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas
corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and
security of a person is at stake, the proceedings
should not be delayed and execution of any
decision thereon must be expedited as soon as
possible since any form of delay, even for a day,
may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek
to immediately protect.
In one of the cases during the Malolos
Constitution, a mother was arrested by security
guards in a subdivision in Bulacan accusing her
children who were stealing. It was then
investigated and a writ of Amparo was filed.
However, the Supreme Court denied it since the
respondents were private persons.
In the case of Rev. Fr. Robert P. Reyes v. Secretary
of DOJ, writ of Amparo is only filed for missing
persons. Fr. Robert P. Reyes cannot use the said
writ for his benefit because he is not even missing
in the first place.
In the case of Napico Home Owners Association,
there were informal settlers in the said private
subdivision. They were about to be removed so
they went to the Supreme Court and issued a writ
of amparo. However, the Supreme Court also
disapproved such because it is only applicable in
cases where there are missing persons. The
informal settlers even argued that if ever they
would get evicted, they would be considered as
missing persons. But then, the court still denied the
motion.
National Economy and Patrimony
Paragraph 4 and 5, Section 2 of Article 12
states that: The President may enter into
agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or
financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development, and utilization
of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral
oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and
general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific
and technical resources.
The President shall notify the
Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within
thirty days from its execution.
No other than the President is allowed to sign a
financial and technical assistance agreements.
Now if the President wishes to withdraw his
signature, the Supreme Court was asked if the
exercise of cancelling the financial and technical
assistance agreement an exercise of quasi-
extrajudicial function of the Supreme Court?
Writ of Amparo
Boac v. Cadapan: in this case are UP students
who are lost, and when Palparan was put to jail
Fr. Roberto Reyes v. Secretary of Justice:
he issued writ of Amparo because of the
takeover of the Manila Peninsula Hotel. The
Supreme Court held that the writ of Amparo
can only be filed on the missing person
Only the president can sign the financial and
technical assistance agreement (FTAA) [See
Art. 12 Sec.2(4)]. The president decided to
withdraw the signature on FTAA. The
question raised in the Supreme Court was: was
the exercise of cancelling the FTAA an
exercise of quasi-judicial function of the
president? No, it is a purely administrative
signature on the part of the president. Because
quasi-judicial is where you decide for the 3rd
parties. If the president itself withdraws on his
signature, it is an administrative signature.
Commission on Appointments
Ad interim appointment: this is an
appointment issued by the President if
Congress is not in session.
- First discussed in the case of Matibag
v. Benipayo
 - Paguia v. Office of the President:
Paguia questioned the qualifications of
CJ Davide when he retired to become
the ambassador to the UN. The Court
dismissed the case because Atty.
Paguia has no personality to sue
because on the time he filed the
petition he was undergoing his
indefinite suspension.
- Justice Philip Aguinaldo v. JBC:
there are 6 vacant seats in the
Sandiganbayan. Judge said that the
PNoy did not follow the clustering of
appointing in Sandiganbayan.
Supreme Court held that clustering is
not prescribed under the Constitution.
The JBC cannot infringe the president
in appointing. It is a personal discretion
by the president.
Midnight appointments:
- De Castro v. JBC: JBC membership
has the power to recommend to the
president. Supreme Court held that it is
valid but the period, covered only on
election on judiciary, the Court said no.
Executive positions only.
- What is the rule of appointing
powers of mayor and governor
during the election ban period?
None. They cannot appoint during the
election ban period. The Supreme
Court held that they cannot appoint on
mass appointments because there is an
existing Civil Service Rule that mayors
and governors cannot mass appoint.
- Cannot appoint up to the 3rd civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
While for the president, he cannot
appoint up to the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
Power of Removal
The president has no power to remove the
Deputy Ombudsman because that will destroy
the independence of the Office of the
Ombudsman.
The President has the power to remove special
prosecutor? Yes.
Independence of Constitutional Bodies
- Funa v. Duque: President Arroyo
designated Duque to become a member
of the board of the following: GSIS,
PhilHealth, ECC, Pag-ibig in addition
to his being chairman in the Civil
Service. The question raised was the
designation correct? Supreme Court
held that Duque by accepting
additional responsibilities as a member
of the board, he is violating the
independence of the Civil Service
Commission. The president has control
in appointing in the corporations, but
Duque himself should be independent,
therefore he has to vacant his position
in the board member.
- Civil Service Commission v. BBM:
can BBM prescribe conditions for the
release of funds of the CSC? The
Supreme Court held that under the
Constitution, CSC enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Whatever appropriation,
Congress approved for their office
must be released automatically.
Proportional Appointment:
- Funa v. Villar: when the Chairman of
COA ended his term, GMA promoted
Villar as the Chairman. Funa question
is the term valid? Supreme Court held
that Villar will serve for a maximum of
7 years.
- Civil Service Commission cannot
substitute its own judgment to the
discretion of the appointment. The
appointment will always be vested on
the head of the agency. The power of
the Civil Service is to deny and
approve, and not substitute.
Law on Public Officers:
Ombudsman Carpio Morales v. Court of
Appeals: three powers of ombudsman as per
Supreme Court (IPIS):
a. Investigatory
b. Prosecutory
c. Impose Sanctions
- The Supreme Court held that the
powers of Ombudsman is subject to the
review of Court of Appeals within the
exercise of its general position.
Condonation of wrongdoings of public
servants should not be allowed.

Yap v. COA: COA disallowed Yap’s

reimbursements