Removal is the ouster of an incumbent before the expiration of his term of office.

The president possesses the power of removal by implication from other powers vested in him. It is implied from his power to appoint. Being executive in nature, it is implied from the constitutional provision vesting the executive power in the President. It may be implied from his function to take care that laws be properly executed; for without it, his orders for law enforcement might not be effectively carried out

1. 2.

3.

4.

The power may be implied from the Presidents control over the administrative departments, bureaus, and offices of the government. Without the power to remove, it would not be always possible for the President to exercise his power of control. As a general rule, the power of removal may be implied from the power of appointment. However, the President cannot remove officials appointed by him where the Constitution prescribes certain methods for separation of such officers from public service.

In the cases where the power of removal is lodged in the President, the same may be exercised only for cause as may be provided by law, and in accordance with the prescribed administrative procedure.

Example: Members of the Supreme Court

In Villaluz v. Zaldivar, members of the career service of the Civil Service who are appointed by the President may be directly disciplined by him provided that the same is for cause and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In Alajar v. Alba, the term of Alajar as Vice-Mayor of the City of Roxas is not fixed by law. However, the latter, in effect, vests in the President the power to fix such term. When Alba was designated as Acting Vice-Mayor of said City, the term of Alajar was, thereby, fixed implicity by the President, in the exercise of his appointing authority. Thus, the term of office of Alajar expired and his right to hold office was extinguished, with the same legal effect as if the term had been fixed by Congress itself. In other words, Alajar was not removed from office, for to remove an officer is to oust him from office before the expiration of his term (Manalang vs. Quitoriano et al., 50 Off. Gaz., 2515). Alajar merely lost the right to hold the office of Vice-Mayor of the City of Roxas by expiration of his term as such.

In Aparri v. CA, Aparri was not removed before the expiration of his term. Rather, his right to hold the office ceased by the expiration of his term to hold such office. In Gonzales v. Office of the President, the President, while he may be vested with authority, cannot order the removal of a Deputy Ombudsman who has no intentional wrongdoing of the grave and serious kind amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Art. 7, Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

What is the Power of Control?

Control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. As administrative head, the duty of the President is to see to it that every department, bureau and office under the executive branch is managed and maintained properly by the person in charge of it in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. It is such power which has been given to the President over all executive officers, from Cabinet members to the lowliest clerk. This is an element of the presidential system where the President is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no other.

The President is the Executive of the Government of the Philippines, and no others The heads of the executive departments occupy political positions and hold office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, should be of the President's bosom confidence, and in the language of Atty. General Cushing, are subject to the direction of the President. (Magallanes Co. Inc. v. Pajo)

Power of control includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law. The power of control necessarily includes the power of Supervision. Control is a stronger power than mere supervision. Power of Supervision is the power of a superior officer to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed by inferiors. The power of supervision does not include the power of control; but the power of control necessarily includes the power of supervision.

In Drilon v. Lim, an officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. In the opinion of the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so performed an act not of control but of mere supervision.

The President may exercise powers conferred by law upon Cabinet members or othersubordinate executive officers (City of Iligan v.Director of Lands). Even where the law provides that the decision of the Director of Lands on questions of fact shall be conclusive when affirmed by the Sec of DENR, the same may, on appeal to the President, be reviewed and reversed by the Executive Secretary. (LacsonMagallanes v. Pano).

Control over what? The power of control is exercisable by the President over the acts of his subordinates and not necessarily over the subordinate himself (Ang-angco v. Castillo) over the actor or agent himsef of the act). It can be said that the while the Executive has control over the judgment or discretion of his subordinates, it is the legislature which has control over their person.

Theoretically, the President has full control of all the members of the Cabinet. He may appoint as he sees fit, shuffle them at pleasure, and replace them in his discretion without any legal inhibition whatever.

It has been held, moreover, that the express grant of the power of control to the President justifies an executive action to carry out the reorganization of an executive office under a broad authority of law. A reorganization can involve the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or even abolition of positions by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. While the power to abolish an office is generally lodged with the legislature, the authority of the President to reorganize the executive branch, which may include such abolition, is permissible under present laws. (MEWAP v. Executive Secretary)

Section 17 is a self-executing provision The President derives power of control directly from the Constitution and not from any implementing legislation. Such a law is in fact unnecessary and will even be invalid if it limits the exercise of his power or withdraws it altogether from the President. All executive functions of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall be directly under the Executive Department, subject to the supervision and control of the President of the Philippines in matters of general policy (Araneta v. Gatmaitan).

In Gascon v. Arroyo, the SC held that the Executive Secretary had the authority to enter into Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation as he was acting on behalf of the President of the Philippines whohad the power to negotiate such agreement. The agreement was therefore binding on the Republic of the Philippines.

Alter Ego Principle; Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The Executive Secretary when acting by authority of the President may reverse the decision of another department secretary. (Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano) When a department secretary makes a decision in the course of performing his or her official duties, the decision, whether honorable or disgraceful, is presumptively the decision of the President, unless he quickly and clearly disowns it.

When Doctrine not Applicable Qualified political agency does NOT apply if the President is required to act in person by law or by the Constitution. Example: The power to grant pardons must be exercised personally by the President.

Reason for the Doctrine Since the executive is a busy man, he is not expected to exercise the totality of his power of control all the time. He is not expected to exercise all his powers in person. He is expected to delegate some of them to men of his confidence, particularly to members of his Cabinet. Thus, out of this practical necessity has risen what has come to be referred to as doctrine of qualified political agency.

Power of Supervision over LGUs The power of the President over local governments is only one of general supervision. The President can only interfere in the affairs and activities of a local government unit if he finds that the latter had acted contrary to law. (Judge Dadole v. COA) A law (RA 7160 Sec 187) which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review the constitutionality of legality of a tax ordinanceand if warranted, to revoke it on either or both groundsis valid, and does not confer the power of control over local government units in the Secretary of Justice, as even if the latter can set aside a tax ordinance, he cannot substitute his own judgment for that of the local government unit. (Drilon v. Lim)

Faithful Execution Clause; Take Care Clause The power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed makes the President a dominant figure in the administration of the government. The President shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Section 17, 2nd sentence) The law he is supposed to enforce includes the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, administrative rules and regulations and municipal ordinances, as well as treaties entered into by government.

This power of the President is not limited to the enforcement of acts of Congress according to their express terms. The Presidents power includes the rights and obligations growing out of the Constitution itself, international relations, and all the protection implied by the nature of the government under the Constitution. The reverse side of the power to execute the law is the duty to carry it out. The President cannot refuse to carry out a law for the simple reason that in his judgment it will not be beneficial to the people. As the Supreme Court pointed out, after all we still live under a rule of law. It has been suggested that the President is not under obligation to enforce a law which in his belief is unconstitutional because it would create no rights and confer no duties being

totally null and void.

The better view is that it is not for him to determine the validity of a law since this is a question exclusively addressed to the judiciary. Hence, until and unless a law is declared unconstitutional, the President has a duty to execute it regardless of his doubts on its validity. A contrary opinion would allow him not only to negate the will of legislature but also to encroach upon the prerogatives of the judiciary.