Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
President
Removal Power
Control Power
Take-Care Clause
REMOVAL POWER
* It presupposes a forcible and permanent separation of
*Removal Power
Term of office
Separation from
office
Determined at the
pleasure of the
President
Not affected by
removal but by the
expiration of their
term
REMOVAL POWER
* Not all officials appointed by the President are also
Removed by impeachment
in accordance with Article
XI
Subject to disciplinary
authority and removal by
the Supreme Court
r vs. Alba
Issues
*Control Power
Control
Supervision
Doctrine of Qualified
Political Agency
* Manubay vs Garilao
FACTS:
* Petitioners owned a 124-hectare land in Camarines Sur.
* In November 1994, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of Pili issued a notice of coverage placing the property
under CARP.
* Petitioners did not protest the notice and filed an application
at the DAR for conversion of the property from agricultural to
residential.
* The Sangguniang Bayan of Pili passed a Resolution approving
the Pili Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1996, reclassifying
the subject property from agricultural to highly urbanized
intended for mixed residential and commercial use.
* Thereafter, petitioners requested the DAR Regional Director to
set aside the November 1994 notice of coverage, pointing out
that the land had been reclassified and the property was no
longer suitable for agricultural purposes.
* Manubay vs Garilao
FACTS:
* The request was denied, on the ground that petitioners had
already been given notices of coverage which must have been
lifted first either because of retention or exemption.
* Respondent denied petitioners application for conversion,
considering that the property had already been placed under the
CARP. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the CA assailing
the denial of their application for conversion, averring that
respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion when he denied
their application.
ISSUE:
* WON the act of a department secretary may be directly
challenged in a petition for certiorari.
* Manubay vs Garilao
HELD:
* Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department
secretaries are alter egos or assistants of the President and their acts
are presumed to be those of the latter unless disapproved or
reprobated by him.
* Thus, as a rule, an aggrieved party affected by the decision of a
cabinet secretary need not appeal to the OP and may file a petition for
certiorari directly in the Court of Appeals assailing the act of the said
secretary.
* In a petition for certiorari premised on grave abuse of discretion, it
must be shown that public respondent patently and grossly abused his
discretion and that such abuse amounted to an evasion of positive duty
or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law. In other words, the public respondent exercised
his power arbitrarily and despotically by reason of passion or hostility.
Doctrine of Qualified
Political Agency
* Angeles vs Gaite
FACTS:
* Petitioner was given custody of her grand niece, Maria Vistan.
She became attached to Maria and took care of her as her
own. Petitioner also gave the same attention to Michael Vistan,
half-brother of Maria.
* At one incident, Micahel took his half-sister away. He brought
her to different provinces while he asked the help of certain
individuals to mislead the petitioner and the police.
* The petitioner filed a complaint against Michael Vistan for five
counts of Violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610,
otherwise known as the Child Abuse Act.
Angeles vs Gaite
denied.
* Petitioner then filed a petition for review with SEC Perez and was
also denied.
* She tried appealing to the Office of the President but was dismissed
by such on the ground of Memorandum Circular No. 58 which bars
an appeal or a petition for review of decisions/orders/resolutions
of the Secretary of Justice except those involving offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or death.
* Petitioner went to the CA which sustained the dismissal
* Petitioner contends that such Memo Circular was unconstitutional
since it diminishes the Power of Control of the President.
RULING:
* It is true that as a rule, the President must exercise his constitutional
powers in person. However, the president may delegate certain powers to
the Executive Secretary at his discretion.
* The president may delegate powers which are not required by the
Constitution for him to perform personally. The reason for this allowance
is the fact that thePresident is not expected to perform in person all the
multifarious executive and administrative functions. The office of the
Executive Secretary is an auxiliary unit which assists the President.
* The rule which has thus gained recognition is that under our
constitutional setup the Executive Secretary who acts for and in behalf
and by authority of the President has an undisputed jurisdiction to affirm,
modify, or even reverse any order that the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, including the Director of Lands, may issue.
* The act of the Executive Secretary, acting as the alter ego of the
President, shall remain valid until reversed, disapproved, or reprobated by
the President. In this case, no reprobation was made hence the decision
granting the land toPano cannot be reversed.
Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited (HPPL) vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA)
RULING:
Its was held that the declaration made by the SBMA
Board declaring HPPL as the winning bidder was neither
final nor unassailable. Under Letter of Instruction No.
620, all projects undertaken by the SBMA are subject to
the approval of the Office of the President. Hence, the
Board of SBMA is under the control and supervision of the
President of the Philippines. Therefore, the declaration
made by the Board did not vest any right in favor of
HPPL.
* PGMA, through AFP Chief of staff Gen. Senga, issued E.O. No.
464 prohibiting officials of the executive department
including the military establishment (Gen. Gudani and
company) from appearing in any legislative inquiry without
her consent.
*Take-Care Clause
* The power to take care that the laws be faithfully
*Take-Care Clause
* The law he is supposed to enforce includes:
* Constitution
* Statutes
* Judicial decisions
* Administrative rules and regulations
* Municipal ordinances
* Treaties
*Take-Care Clause
* The President is not obliged 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.