Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

---

The President of the Philippines, as the head of the executive department, wields significant constitutional and statutory powers. These powers can be classified into three broad categories: executive powers, legislative powers, and judicial powers. Additionally, the President exercises inherent powers, foreign affairs functions, and specific powers in the realm of public international law.

Below is an exhaustive treatment of the powers of the President under the Philippine Constitution and other relevant laws:

---

1. Executive Powers

The executive powers of the President emanate primarily from Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which outlines the President's role as the Chief Executive. These include:

a. Executive Power (Sec. 1, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
The President is vested with the Executive Power, which encompasses the broad authority to enforce and administer laws. This power is not explicitly defined but includes:

1. Supervision and Control of Executive Departments
   The President has control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. This includes the power to appoint and remove officials in accordance with the law and the Constitution, as well as the ability to issue executive orders and other directives for the efficient administration of the government.

   • Control means the power to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside the acts of subordinate officials.
   • Supervision entails overseeing operations to ensure that laws are followed.

2. Ordinance Power (Sec. 17, Art. VII)
   The President may issue Executive Orders, Administrative Orders, Proclamations, Memoranda, and Circulars for the efficient administration of laws. These instruments allow the President to operationalize the mandates of executive functions.

   • Executive Orders are rules of a general or permanent nature.
   • Administrative Orders pertain to specific administrative matters within the executive branch.
   • Proclamations refer to official announcements of government policies.

3. Power of Appointment (Sec. 16, Art. VII)
   The President has the power to appoint officials, including heads of executive departments, members of the judiciary, and officers of constitutional commissions, subject to the rules on confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA). Appointments may be categorized as:

   • Regular appointments that require the consent of the CA.
   • Ad interim appointments made during the recess of Congress, which take effect immediately but must be confirmed by the CA when Congress resumes.

4. Removal Power
   The President has the power to remove executive officials for just cause unless the law provides otherwise. However, removal of those who require confirmation by the CA is more restricted and may require certain procedural safeguards.

5. Power of Control and Supervision over Local Governments (Sec. 4, Art. X)
   The President exercises general supervision over local governments. This power does not equate to control, meaning the President can only ensure that local government units perform their functions as prescribed by law, but cannot substitute their judgment with his own.

---

2. Legislative Powers

Despite the separation of powers doctrine, the President has certain legislative powers:

a. Veto Power (Sec. 27, Art. VI)
The President has the power to veto bills passed by Congress. This veto can be:

• General Veto, where the entire bill is disapproved.
• Line-item Veto, where specific provisions in appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills are vetoed without affecting the entire bill.

The veto power is a check against hasty or unconstitutional legislation. Congress may override the veto with a two-thirds vote of all members of both Houses.

b. Power to Call Special Sessions of Congress (Sec. 15, Art. VI)
The President can call Congress into a special session at any time, particularly when urgent matters or national emergencies require legislative action.

c. Budgetary Power (Sec. 22, Art. VII)
The President is responsible for preparing the national budget, which is submitted to Congress. The General Appropriations Act, which funds government operations, is initiated by the President, giving him substantial influence over fiscal policy.

---

3. Military Powers

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines (Sec. 18, Art. VII). The Commander-in-Chief powers are divided into three levels:

a. Calling-out Power
The President may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. This is the most basic power and requires no prior approval from Congress.

b. Martial Law (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
The President may declare martial law in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, for a period not exceeding 60 days. Congress may extend or revoke such declaration, and the Supreme Court may review its sufficiency.

c. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
The President can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under similar circumstances as martial law. However, this suspension applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses connected with invasion.

---

4. Judicial Powers

The President has limited judicial powers, primarily focused on granting clemency:

a. Power to Grant Pardons, Reprieves, Commutations, and Amnesty (Sec. 19, Art. VII)

• Pardon: The President may grant pardon to individuals convicted of crimes, either before or after conviction, except in cases of impeachment.
• Reprieve: The temporary postponement of a punishment.
• Commutation: The reduction of the severity of a penalty.
• Amnesty: Granted for political offenses, requiring the concurrence of Congress.

The exercise of these powers is part of the system of checks and balances, ensuring justice and mercy.

---

5. Foreign Affairs and Treaty-Making Powers

As the primary architect of foreign policy, the President holds extensive powers in the sphere of international relations:

a. Diplomatic Power
The President represents the Philippines in foreign relations and is empowered to conduct negotiations, appoint ambassadors, and receive foreign dignitaries (Sec. 20, Art. VII). This also includes the authority to recognize foreign states and governments.

b. Treaty Power (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
The President negotiates and enters into international treaties and agreements, subject to the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate. This makes the President the initiator of the country’s international obligations, while the Senate provides the necessary legislative check.

c. Executive Agreements
Unlike treaties, executive agreements do not require Senate concurrence. They are typically used for routine or less formal arrangements between governments and do not require the same level of legislative scrutiny.

d. War Powers (Sec. 23, Art. VI)
While Congress has the authority to declare the existence of a state of war, the President exercises operational control over military forces during any such declared war.

---

6. Emergency Powers (Sec. 23(2), Art. VI)

In times of war or other national emergencies, the President may be granted emergency powers by Congress. Such powers are time-bound and limited to specific purposes.

---

7. Inherent Powers

The President, like all government entities, holds certain inherent powers necessary to perform governmental functions:

a. Police Power
The President plays a critical role in implementing regulations that promote public order, health, safety, morals, and general welfare, often through executive orders or legislation backed by the executive.

b. Power of Eminent Domain
Although the power to take private property for public use with just compensation (eminent domain) is vested in Congress, the President can implement such laws through administrative action.

---

Conclusion

The powers of the President, though wide-reaching, are balanced by the system of checks and balances embedded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This ensures that while the President can effectively execute the laws and govern the country, other branches of government—such as Congress and the judiciary—retain oversight to prevent abuse or overreach.

Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Power of Appointment of the President (Philippine Political Law and Public International Law)

The power of appointment is one of the key prerogatives vested in the President of the Philippines by the Constitution. It plays a crucial role in ensuring that the executive department functions effectively by enabling the President to select competent individuals to hold public offices. This power, however, is not absolute and is subject to constitutional and statutory limitations.

Constitutional Basis

The power of appointment of the President is primarily rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly in Article VII, Section 16, which states:

"The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of lower-rank officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards."

This provision reflects the dual nature of the President's power of appointment:

1. Appointments Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA)
2. Appointments Not Requiring Confirmation (Direct Appointments)

1. Appointments Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

The Constitution specifies certain appointments that require the concurrence or confirmation of the Commission on Appointments (CA). These include:

• Heads of executive departments (Cabinet secretaries)
• Ambassadors and other public ministers
• Consuls
• Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
• Constitutional officers whose appointments are vested in the President, such as members of constitutional commissions (e.g., Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit)

The Commission on Appointments is composed of members from both houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and serves as a check on the President's appointment power. The process involves the President submitting nominations to the CA, which may approve, reject, or bypass the nomination.

It is important to note that while the CA can confirm or reject an appointment, it cannot remove an appointee. Furthermore, appointments that require CA confirmation cannot be bypassed by making temporary or ad interim appointments when Congress is not in session. However, ad interim appointments may be made during recess and are effective immediately but subject to later confirmation.

2. Appointments Not Requiring Confirmation (Direct Appointments)

For certain positions, the President has the authority to make appointments without the need for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. These include:

• Members of the Supreme Court and lower courts
• The Ombudsman and his deputies
• Sectoral representatives in Congress (if applicable)
• Members of constitutional bodies like the Human Rights Commission
• Officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law

Under this category, the President exercises more direct discretion in filling vacancies, subject to the qualifications and eligibility requirements prescribed by law. For example, judicial appointments are made based on the recommendations of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), an independent body tasked with screening nominees for judicial positions.

Limitations on the President's Power of Appointment

1. Checks by the Commission on Appointments: As mentioned earlier, the CA serves as a check on the President's power of appointment for key positions.

2. Judicial and Bar Council: In the case of appointments to the judiciary, the Judicial and Bar Council limits the President's discretion by submitting a shortlist of nominees from which the President can choose.

3. Appointments Subject to Merit and Fitness: The Constitution mandates that appointments in the civil service should be based on merit and fitness. The Civil Service Commission ensures that appointments adhere to this principle, thereby constraining the President’s power to appoint unqualified individuals.

4. Ineligibility of Elective Officials: Under the Constitution (Article IX, Section 7), no elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure. This provision prevents the President from appointing sitting elected officials to executive positions.

5. Prohibition of Midnight Appointments: Under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, the President is prohibited from making appointments two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his or her term. Appointments made during this period are known as "midnight appointments" and are generally considered void. An exception to this rule applies to temporary appointments to executive positions when immediate action is needed.

6. Term Limits: Many key appointments, especially to constitutional commissions or the judiciary, are for fixed terms. The President cannot dismiss or remove these officials without cause before the expiration of their terms, limiting the influence of the appointing power.

Ad Interim Appointments

As provided by the Constitution, when Congress is not in session, the President may make ad interim appointments to positions that would otherwise require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. These appointments take effect immediately, but they lapse if not confirmed by the CA once Congress resumes. Ad interim appointees enjoy all the powers of regular appointees but remain subject to CA confirmation.

In the event the CA rejects or bypasses an ad interim appointment, the President may not reappoint the same person to the same position.

Case Law on Appointments

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has rendered several important decisions regarding the President’s power of appointment, including:

• De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 191002, 2010): The Court ruled that the prohibition on midnight appointments does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court. Thus, the President retains the power to appoint a Chief Justice even within the prohibited period if the vacancy is in the judiciary.

• Rufino v. Endriga (G.R. No. 139554, 2003): The Court emphasized that appointments to the board of trustees of the Cultural Center of the Philippines do not require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

• Matibag v. Benipayo (G.R. No. 149036, 2002): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that ad interim appointments to constitutional commissions (in this case, the Commission on Elections) are valid but subject to CA confirmation. If not confirmed, the appointee is barred from reappointment to the same position.

Conclusion

The President’s power of appointment is one of the most significant tools for ensuring the functioning of the executive branch and for influencing the composition of various government offices. However, this power is tempered by constitutional checks and balances, primarily through the oversight of the Commission on Appointments, the Judicial and Bar Council, and other constitutional provisions such as the prohibition on midnight appointments.

The proper exercise of the power of appointment ensures that public offices are held by qualified and competent individuals, reinforcing the constitutional principle that "public office is a public trust."

Power of Control and Supervision | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

3. Power of Control and Supervision

The President of the Philippines is vested with substantial powers as the Chief Executive, which includes the power of control and the power of supervision over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. These powers are essential to ensure the proper execution of laws and the management of the government’s administrative machinery. The distinctions and implications of these powers are critical in understanding the extent of the President's authority in the exercise of executive functions.

Power of Control

• Definition and Scope:
  The power of control is the authority of the President to alter, modify, or nullify decisions or actions of subordinates, and to substitute his own judgment for that of a subordinate. This is derived from the constitutional mandate that the President shall exercise "control over all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices" (Article VII, Section 17, 1987 Constitution). It is a broader power compared to supervision, giving the President direct involvement in the execution of laws by the entire executive branch.

• Nature of Control:
  Under control, the President is the highest authority in the executive branch, which allows him to review, revise, or reverse decisions made by officials within the executive departments. This power enables the President to ensure that executive actions comply with the law and the administration’s policies.

• Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency:
  The power of control is closely related to the doctrine of qualified political agency, which means that acts performed and decisions made by Cabinet secretaries and other alter egos of the President are considered as the acts of the President, unless expressly countermanded or disapproved by him. The President does not need to personally perform every executive function; instead, his alter egos may do so in his behalf. However, because the President has control, he can review, amend, or reject their decisions.

• Delegation of Control:
  While the President can delegate the exercise of control to his subordinates, the principle of control means that he retains the ability to intervene or revoke decisions at any time. This is unlike powers that are purely ministerial, where discretion is limited.

• Administrative Reforms and Personnel Management:
  The President’s control includes the power to appoint, discipline, and remove government officials. As such, he can hire or dismiss officials in the executive branch, except those positions protected by constitutional provisions such as members of constitutional commissions and the judiciary, where removal is governed by specific procedures.

• Limitations on Control:
  While the power of control is broad, it is subject to constitutional and statutory limitations. Certain constitutional bodies like the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, and Commission on Elections are independent and outside the President's control, ensuring checks and balances within the government.

Power of Supervision

• Definition and Scope:
  Supervision is the authority to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, but it does not include the power to substitute one's judgment for that of the subordinate. Unlike control, supervision is limited to oversight, which allows the President to call attention to any lapses or irregularities in the performance of duties, but he cannot interfere directly with the decisions or actions of the subordinate unless these are contrary to law.

• Distinction from Control:
  The key difference between control and supervision is that control involves the ability to modify or override decisions, whereas supervision only allows for ensuring that subordinates are performing their duties in accordance with the law. Under supervision, the President may direct an official to comply with legal standards but cannot change the official’s decisions or substitute them with his own.

• Local Government Units (LGUs):
  The President exercises only general supervision over local government units (LGUs), which means that he can ensure that local executives perform their duties in accordance with the law. The President cannot intervene in purely local matters unless these involve violations of law or pose risks to national interests.

  Under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), the President can suspend or remove local officials, but only for legal grounds and following due process. The President cannot directly manage the affairs of LGUs but may call their attention when they act beyond the bounds of the law.

• Autonomous Regions and Special Supervisory Arrangements:
  In the case of autonomous regions like the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), the President’s power of supervision is even more limited to respect their autonomous status. He can oversee the region to ensure compliance with national laws but cannot directly intervene in the region’s governance unless there is a clear breach of constitutional provisions or national law.

• Constitutional Bodies and Supervision:
  The President also exercises general supervision over constitutionally-created bodies that are outside his direct control, such as the Office of the Ombudsman and constitutional commissions. While the President can ensure that these bodies comply with laws, he has no power to direct or alter their internal policies and procedures.

Key Jurisprudence and Applications

1. Ganzon v. Court of Appeals (1991)
   This case distinguishes control from supervision. The Supreme Court ruled that the President only has supervisory powers over local government units, not control. He can call attention to non-compliance with laws but cannot interfere with purely local concerns.

2. Drilon v. Lim (1994)
   In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the President’s power over LGUs is limited to supervision. It stressed that the President cannot remove or discipline local officials except in accordance with the law, emphasizing the autonomy of local governments.

3. Joson v. Executive Secretary (2001)
   This decision clarified the President’s supervisory powers over LGUs, stating that while the President can issue directives to ensure compliance with laws, he cannot modify or substitute the decisions of LGU officials unless they violate the law.

4. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate (2011)
   In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the limited power of the President over autonomous regions like BARMM, stressing that the President’s supervision is only to ensure that laws are followed, without direct interference in their internal governance.

Conclusion

The power of control and power of supervision are critical components of the President’s executive authority. Control allows for a direct and active role in decision-making across the executive branch, while supervision is a more passive power aimed at ensuring legal compliance without overriding local or subordinate decisions. Both powers are indispensable for the proper administration of the government, but they are constrained by the Constitution, statutory laws, and the principle of autonomy for certain government units and agencies.

Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Commander-in-Chief Powers of the President (Philippines)

Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the President holds the position as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. This power is enshrined under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution. Below is a detailed analysis of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, including its scope, limitations, jurisprudence, and implications.

I. Constitutional Basis

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.”

This constitutional provision sets the foundation of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers. It bestows upon the President a three-tiered prerogative to:

1. Call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion.
2. Declare martial law.
3. Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Each of these powers is distinct, with varying levels of intervention and limitations.

II. Three-Tiered Powers of the Commander-in-Chief

1. Calling Out the Armed Forces

   • The first and least extreme power under the Commander-in-Chief clause is the ability of the President to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. This is the most flexible of the Commander-in-Chief powers.
   • Key Features:
     • This power can be exercised at the President’s discretion without the need for any precondition.
     • It does not require Congressional approval.
     • There is no specified duration limit, but it is subject to judicial review to ensure that there is no abuse of discretion.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the President’s calling out power, ruling that it is a discretionary power that need not be exercised only when actual invasion, rebellion, or lawless violence is occurring, but also when there is a threat thereof.
   • Limitations:
     • The power is broad but can be questioned if there is an abuse of discretion (e.g., where there is no basis for the President’s belief that lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion exists).

2. Martial Law Declaration

   • The President has the power to proclaim martial law in the Philippines or any part thereof in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
   • Key Features:
     • Martial law imposes extraordinary governmental authority over civil functions and may lead to military control in affected areas.
     • Martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor supplant the functioning of civilian courts.
     • The President must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law.
     • Congress may review, revoke, or extend martial law by majority vote.
     • Martial law shall last no more than 60 days unless extended by Congress.
     • Any Filipino citizen may challenge the declaration of martial law before the Supreme Court, which must decide the case within 30 days.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Lacson v. Perez (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that martial law is only intended to address rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk. The case reinforced the separation of powers, particularly the need for judicial and legislative review of the President’s exercise of martial law powers.
     • Lagman v. Medialdea (2017) upheld the President's martial law declaration in Mindanao, reiterating the role of the judiciary in assessing factual bases for the imposition of martial law.
   • Limitations:
     • Martial law cannot abrogate the Bill of Rights.
     • Courts and Congress continue to function during martial law.
     • The Supreme Court has the power to review the factual basis of the martial law proclamation.

3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

   • The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is the most restrictive power and can only be invoked in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
   • Key Features:
     • When suspended, individuals can be detained without being brought before a court.
     • The suspension must follow the same process as martial law in terms of Congressional reporting, approval, and review by the courts.
     • Suspension cannot exceed 60 days unless extended by Congress.
     • Any citizen can question the suspension before the Supreme Court.
     • Persons arrested or detained during the suspension must be charged within three days or be released.
   • Jurisprudence:
     • In Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo (2012), the Court emphasized that suspension of the writ is a tool to address threats to public safety and should not be misused to curtail individual freedoms unnecessarily.
   • Limitations:
     • The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may only be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion.
     • The suspension does not apply to ordinary crimes unrelated to invasion or rebellion.

III. Judicial and Congressional Oversight

The 1987 Constitution provides significant checks on the exercise of the Commander-in-Chief powers. These checks are embedded within both the judiciary and the legislature:

• Congressional Review:

  • Congress has the power to revoke or extend a martial law declaration or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
  • Any revocation by Congress cannot be overturned by the President.
  • If martial law or the suspension of habeas corpus is to continue beyond 60 days, the President must seek Congressional approval.

• Judicial Review:

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law declaration or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
  • The Court must decide on any challenge within 30 days from its filing.

IV. Limitations of Commander-in-Chief Powers

1. Constitutional Boundaries:

   • The President cannot suspend the Constitution or the Bill of Rights even under martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
   • Civil courts and legislative bodies must remain operational during martial law.

2. Abuse of Discretion:

   • The Supreme Court is empowered to nullify any act of the President if there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
   • The President’s decisions to declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, or call out the armed forces are subject to review and may be challenged in court if there is an allegation of abuse of discretion.

3. International Law Limitations:

   • The Philippines, as a signatory to various international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is obligated to protect fundamental human rights even during times of war or rebellion. The suspension of certain rights (such as the writ of habeas corpus) must still comply with international obligations regarding the treatment of individuals and respect for human dignity.

V. Conclusion

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President are vast but balanced by constitutional safeguards, judicial oversight, and legislative checks. The Constitution ensures that while the President can exercise necessary force to maintain law and order, these powers are not absolute. They are constrained by legal processes designed to protect individual freedoms and prevent the abuse of executive authority. The combined roles of Congress and the judiciary act as essential checks to ensure the proper exercise of the Commander-in-Chief powers in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of democracy.

Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Pardoning Power of the President

I. Constitutional Basis

The pardoning power of the President of the Philippines is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, specifically under Article VII, Section 19, which states:

“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.”

II. Types of Executive Clemency

The President’s pardoning power includes various forms of executive clemency:

1. Pardon

   • A pardon is an act of grace which exempts an individual from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime committed. There are two types:
     • Absolute Pardon: Completely extinguishes the criminal liability and all its effects.
     • Conditional Pardon: Grants clemency subject to certain conditions. Non-compliance may result in the reinstatement of the original penalty.

2. Reprieve

   • A reprieve temporarily postpones the execution of a sentence, particularly in capital cases. It does not affect the judgment itself but merely delays its execution.

3. Commutation

   • Commutation is the reduction of the severity of the punishment. For example, a death sentence could be commuted to life imprisonment, or life imprisonment could be reduced to a lesser term.

4. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures

   • This allows the President to forgive financial penalties imposed by the courts, such as fines, or remit forfeiture of property.

5. Amnesty

   • Although related to the pardoning power, amnesty is distinct in that it is a general act addressing a class of individuals, typically for political offenses like rebellion or sedition, and requires the concurrence of Congress.

III. Limitations on the Pardoning Power

While broad, the President’s pardoning power is not without limits. These include:

1. Cases of Impeachment: The President cannot grant clemency to individuals convicted in an impeachment proceeding. Impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process, and the penalties—removal from office and disqualification from holding public office—are beyond the reach of executive clemency.

2. Conviction by Final Judgment: Clemency can only be exercised after a person has been convicted by final judgment. This means that the conviction must have been affirmed by the final court of appeal and is no longer subject to legal challenge. Thus, the pardoning power does not apply to individuals whose cases are still under trial or appeal.

3. Compliance with Conditional Pardons: In the case of a conditional pardon, the recipient must comply with the specified conditions. Failure to comply can result in the revocation of the pardon and reinstatement of the original penalty.

4. No Interference with Judicial Functions: The exercise of the pardoning power does not affect the findings of guilt or innocence by the courts. It only addresses the penalties imposed by the judgment, not the legal determination of the crime itself.

IV. Nature of Pardoning Power

1. Discretionary: The exercise of the pardoning power is purely discretionary. The President is not required to justify or provide reasons for granting or denying clemency. The courts cannot compel the President to grant clemency, and the decision is generally non-justiciable.

2. Political Power: The power to grant clemency is considered a political act, falling within the exclusive domain of the Executive. It is not subject to judicial review, except in cases where there is a clear violation of a constitutional provision, such as granting clemency before a final conviction.

3. Not an Admission of Innocence: The granting of a pardon does not imply the innocence of the convicted individual. It only mitigates or cancels the punishment. For example, a pardon does not necessarily restore a person’s right to hold public office, unless specifically stated in the terms of the pardon.

4. Effect on Civil Rights: A pardon can restore civil rights, such as the right to vote or hold public office. However, it does not automatically restore all rights, particularly political or professional rights, unless specifically included in the terms of the pardon.

V. Cases and Jurisprudence

Several significant cases have defined the scope and limits of the pardoning power in the Philippines:

1. Monsanto v. Factoran (G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989)

   • This case clarified that while a pardon may restore an individual’s civil rights, it does not necessarily erase the criminal record or restore the convicted person to their former office, unless explicitly stated in the pardon itself.

2. In re: Laureta (G.R. No. L-68635, May 14, 1987)

   • The Court held that a pardon does not wipe out the crime itself, but only forgives the penalty. Therefore, the pardoned person is still considered to have been convicted of the crime, and the pardon does not retroactively nullify the conviction.

3. Almonte v. Vasquez (G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995)

   • In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the President's power to grant clemency is discretionary and cannot be questioned or reviewed by the courts, except in cases of gross abuse of discretion.

4. People v. Salle (G.R. No. 103567, July 5, 1993)

   • The Court held that a conditional pardon must be complied with according to its terms. If the conditions are not met, the original penalty can be reinstated.

VI. Application and Procedure

1. Filing a Petition: A petition for pardon, reprieve, or commutation is typically filed with the Office of the President through the Board of Pardons and Parole. The board evaluates the petition and makes a recommendation to the President.

2. Investigation and Recommendation: The Board of Pardons and Parole conducts an investigation into the circumstances of the case and the behavior of the convicted individual while serving their sentence. This investigation includes an assessment of the convict’s rehabilitation and potential for reintegration into society.

3. Granting Clemency: After reviewing the recommendation of the Board, the President may choose to grant or deny clemency. The decision is final and not subject to appeal.

4. Publication: The granting of clemency is generally published, and the terms of the pardon or commutation are outlined in an official document or proclamation.

VII. Conclusion

The pardoning power is a vital tool for the President to temper the rigidity of justice with mercy, ensuring that deserving individuals are given a second chance after being convicted. However, it is bounded by constitutional limitations, and its exercise must always balance the interests of justice, public safety, and the individual’s potential for rehabilitation. Although its discretionary nature places it beyond the reach of judicial review, it must always be exercised with care, lest it undermine the rule of law or justice itself.

Diplomatic power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Diplomatic Power of the President under Political Law and Public International Law

Diplomatic power is one of the critical powers vested in the President of the Philippines under the Constitution. This power pertains to the President's role in conducting foreign affairs and managing the nation's external relations. The President's diplomatic power is exercised in accordance with both domestic legal frameworks and public international law principles.

1. Constitutional Basis

The President's diplomatic power is rooted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, specifically under Article VII, Section 21, which states:

"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate."

The President is primarily responsible for initiating and conducting diplomacy, representing the country in international relations, negotiating treaties, and engaging with foreign states and international organizations. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to checks and balances, particularly through the participation of the Senate.

2. Scope of Diplomatic Power

The scope of the President’s diplomatic power includes the following key functions:

a. Treaty-making power

The President has the authority to negotiate and enter into treaties with other states or international organizations. However, treaties are not automatically effective upon the President's signature. To become valid and enforceable, treaties must be ratified by the Senate with at least two-thirds concurrence.

• Treaty vs. Executive Agreement: While treaties require Senate ratification, executive agreements do not. Executive agreements, which are less formal than treaties, are binding international agreements that the President can enter into without the need for Senate concurrence. These typically involve matters of administrative or operational detail, such as trade agreements, military aid, or other routine international affairs.

b. Appointment of Ambassadors, Public Ministers, and Consuls

Under Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution, the President has the power to appoint ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. These individuals serve as the official representatives of the Philippines in other states and international organizations.

• Ambassadors are high-ranking officials who serve as the chief diplomatic representatives of the President in foreign countries, while consuls handle issues such as protecting Filipino citizens abroad and promoting economic and cultural ties.

c. Reception of Foreign Ambassadors and Ministers

Another aspect of the President’s diplomatic power is the reception of foreign ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives. By receiving foreign diplomats, the President recognizes the legitimacy of foreign states and their governments. This act has significant implications in international law, particularly in cases of regime changes or new state recognition.

d. Recognition of States and Governments

The President also holds the power to recognize foreign states and governments. This power entails deciding whether to acknowledge a new state or government, especially in cases of independence or revolutionary changes. Recognition is a key aspect of state sovereignty under international law and can affect diplomatic and trade relations.

• For example, when a foreign government is overthrown or there is a change in regime, it is within the President’s discretion to decide whether to continue diplomatic relations with the new regime.

e. Entering into Executive Agreements

As noted earlier, the President can enter into executive agreements without needing Senate approval. Executive agreements are typically used for less formal international engagements and do not require the same rigorous process as treaties.

• Examples: Trade pacts, military aid agreements, or administrative matters can be dealt with through executive agreements. The Supreme Court has upheld this distinction in cases like Bayan v. Zamora (G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000), where the validity of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an executive agreement, was affirmed.

f. Diplomatic Immunity and Foreign Relations Law

The President also exercises powers related to diplomatic immunity under the principles of international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). This allows foreign diplomats to operate in the country without being subject to the host nation’s legal jurisdiction in certain matters, reflecting the reciprocal nature of international diplomatic relations.

• The Philippines, as a party to the Vienna Convention, is bound to respect the privileges and immunities of foreign diplomats in the country. The President, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), may decide on issues relating to the waiving of immunity or expulsion of diplomats.

3. Limitations on the President’s Diplomatic Power

While the President has considerable authority in foreign relations, there are constitutional and statutory limitations on these powers:

a. Senate Concurrence for Treaties As mentioned, treaties require Senate concurrence. This serves as a check on the President’s foreign policy decisions, ensuring that any binding international commitments reflect broader legislative approval.

• For instance, in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005), the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between treaties and executive agreements and reaffirmed the necessity of Senate concurrence for treaties.

b. Judicial Review The President's diplomatic power is also subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, particularly in cases where diplomatic actions violate constitutional rights or statutory law. However, as a general rule, courts give considerable deference to the executive’s decisions in the realm of foreign relations, invoking the political question doctrine.

• In David v. Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006), the Court reiterated that matters involving foreign policy are generally considered political questions, which are beyond the scope of judicial inquiry, except when there are clear violations of constitutional rights.

c. International Law Obligations The President must also conduct diplomatic activities in accordance with the Philippines' obligations under international law. This includes abiding by treaties to which the Philippines is a party, the principles of the United Nations Charter, and other customary international law norms.

4. Notable Cases Related to Diplomatic Power

a. Bayan v. Zamora (G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000) In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), an executive agreement between the Philippines and the United States. The Court ruled that the VFA did not require Senate concurrence as it was an executive agreement, not a treaty. The decision underscored the President's wide discretion in entering into international agreements.

b. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005) Here, the Court clarified the distinction between treaties and executive agreements. It ruled that while the President can enter into executive agreements without Senate concurrence, treaties—those that create permanent legal obligations or affect public policy—require such concurrence.

c. Saguisag v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016) This case involved the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the agreement as an executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence. The Court reiterated the broad authority of the President in managing foreign relations and entering into international agreements of limited scope.

5. Diplomatic Power in Public International Law

In the realm of public international law, the President’s diplomatic power intersects with several key principles:

a. Sovereign Equality Under international law, all states are considered sovereign and equal. The President, in exercising diplomatic power, must uphold this principle when dealing with foreign states and avoid actions that may infringe on the sovereignty of other nations.

b. Non-Intervention International law prohibits states from intervening in the internal affairs of other states. The President must adhere to this norm, refraining from actions that could be considered violations of another state's sovereignty, such as endorsing insurgencies or interfering in electoral processes.

c. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes In line with the United Nations Charter, the President is tasked with ensuring that disputes with other states are settled peacefully. This includes engaging in diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration to avoid conflicts.

Conclusion

The diplomatic power of the President is a fundamental aspect of governance in the Philippines. While broad in scope, it is subject to important constitutional checks, particularly through Senate concurrence for treaties and judicial review for possible abuses. The President's actions on the international stage also need to align with the norms of public international law, ensuring that the Philippines remains a responsible member of the global community.

Veto powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Veto Powers of the President under Political Law and Public International Law

I. Introduction to the Veto Power

The veto power of the President refers to the constitutional authority granted to the Chief Executive to reject or disapprove a bill or resolution passed by Congress. This power is fundamental in maintaining the system of checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches. The power of veto allows the President to prevent the passage of laws that he/she considers objectionable, unconstitutional, or not in the best interest of the nation.

The veto power of the President is enshrined in Article VI, Section 27(1) of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, which states:

"Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law."

II. Forms of Presidential Veto Power

There are several forms of veto power available to the President under Philippine law:

1. Absolute Veto
   This is when the President rejects an entire bill, returning it to Congress with a statement of objections. The veto is exercised within 30 days from receipt of the bill by the President, as prescribed in the Constitution.

2. Line-Item Veto
   Under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the President is empowered to veto specific items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill without vetoing the entire bill. This is known as the "line-item veto."

   "The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object."

   The line-item veto allows the President to approve the general provisions of the bill while rejecting objectionable portions. This power is most commonly exercised in relation to budget or appropriation laws.

3. Pocket Veto
   The "pocket veto" is an implied form of veto wherein the President does not act on a bill within the 30-day period prescribed by the Constitution. If Congress adjourns before the expiration of the period, the bill does not become law. However, this is not explicitly recognized under Philippine law, as the Constitution provides that a bill becomes law if the President does not communicate a veto within 30 days after receipt.

   This situation, although not commonly applicable in the Philippines due to the clear timeline for presidential action, can be observed in other jurisdictions like the United States.

III. Process of Overriding a Presidential Veto

When the President exercises the veto power, the bill is returned to the House where it originated, with a statement of the President’s objections. Congress may attempt to override the veto through the following process:

1. Reconsideration by the House of Origin
   The House where the bill originated must reconsider the vetoed bill. If two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of that House vote to pass the bill, despite the President's objections, the bill is sent to the other House.

2. Reconsideration by the Other House
   The second House (the House to which the bill was transmitted after reconsideration by the House of origin) must also reconsider the bill. If two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of this House agree to pass the bill, the veto is overridden, and the bill becomes law without the President's signature.

IV. Limitations and Considerations of the Veto Power

1. Time Frame for Presidential Action
   The President must communicate a veto to the originating House within 30 days of receipt of the bill. Failure to do so results in the bill becoming law as if the President had signed it.

2. Nature of Bills Subject to Line-Item Veto
   The line-item veto applies exclusively to appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills. The President cannot use the line-item veto power in other types of bills, such as those that propose amendments to the Constitution or general bills.

3. Qualified vs. Absolute Veto
   A veto may be absolute, applying to the entire bill, or qualified (through a line-item veto), wherein only specific provisions or items of the bill are rejected. In either case, the veto must be accompanied by the President's written objections.

4. Bicameral Conference Committee Reports
   Once a bill reaches the President for signature after bicameral conference committee deliberations, any amendments or changes made by the bicameral committee cannot be subject to further congressional debates. The President may veto the bill as amended but cannot send it back to the bicameral committee for further changes.

V. Rationale for the Veto Power

The veto power is a critical element of the checks and balances system, allowing the Executive to curtail potential overreach by the Legislature. It serves several important purposes:

1. Prevention of Unconstitutional Legislation
   The President can veto bills that, in his/her view, violate the Constitution, ensuring that laws are enacted in accordance with constitutional principles.

2. Ensuring Fiscal Responsibility
   The line-item veto allows the President to control excessive or unnecessary appropriations, curbing the possibility of government overspending or fiscal irresponsibility.

3. Political Safeguard
   The veto power acts as a political check, where the President can express disagreement with the policy direction of a bill. It ensures that laws reflect not just the will of Congress but also the broader interest of the nation as represented by the Executive branch.

VI. Veto Powers in the Context of Public International Law

While the veto power is predominantly a domestic constitutional issue, it can have indirect implications in the context of international law, particularly in the following areas:

1. Treaties and International Agreements
   Under Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution, no treaty or international agreement is valid and binding unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. Although this is a Senate function, the President’s veto power does not directly apply to treaties. However, the Executive may refuse to sign or submit a treaty for Senate concurrence, which could have a similar effect as a veto in delaying or preventing international commitments.

2. International Relations and Foreign Policy
   The veto power could indirectly affect the implementation of foreign policy or international commitments, especially in cases where legislative measures are required for the execution of treaties or international agreements. For example, the President may veto a bill that appropriates funds for obligations under international agreements, thus hindering the full implementation of those agreements.

3. Executive Discretion in Foreign Affairs
   The veto power complements the President’s broad authority over foreign policy, as the Chief Architect of the nation's foreign relations. Although not directly impacting international law, the veto power allows the President to shape foreign policy through selective approval or rejection of legislative measures related to international commitments.

VII. Conclusion

The veto power is a vital instrument of the President, giving the Executive branch the ability to reject proposed legislation and maintain a balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches. Its proper use is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring that no single branch dominates the legislative process. While the veto power is primarily domestic, it has repercussions in the conduct of international relations, particularly in matters requiring legislative action to implement treaties or international obligations.

Residual powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Residual Powers of the President under Political Law and Public International Law

Residual powers refer to those powers that are neither specifically granted by law nor expressly denied to the President, but are deemed necessary for the effective discharge of the executive function. These are the powers inherent to the President as the head of state, chief executive, and commander-in-chief, in order to address situations where there are no clear legal precedents or statutory provisions governing certain executive actions.

Constitutional Basis

The residual powers of the President are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution but are implied under the President's general executive powers. In the Philippines, these powers derive primarily from the 1987 Constitution, specifically from Article VII (Executive Department), in conjunction with judicial interpretations that have recognized the inherent need for the President to act in certain situations where the law is silent or ambiguous.

The key provisions that provide a general foundation for the exercise of the President’s residual powers are:

1. Section 1, Article VII: The executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines.

   • This grants the President broad authority to manage the affairs of the government and execute the laws, which can be interpreted to include residual powers.

2. Section 17, Article VII: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He or she shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

   • The "faithful execution" clause implies the President’s power to take actions necessary to enforce the law, even in cases where no specific law exists for the situation.

Nature and Scope of Residual Powers

Residual powers are generally understood to fill the gaps in legal or executive authority, enabling the President to respond to unforeseen situations. These powers are used when there is an absence of specific statutory authority but where action is still required to fulfill executive duties. The President's residual powers are inherently linked to the need to maintain governmental operations and ensure national interest.

Residual powers include:

1. Prerogative Powers: These are traditional executive powers which are not necessarily codified in law but are recognized as inherent to the executive role. For instance, in cases where immediate executive action is needed but not specifically covered by law, the President may act by virtue of residual power.

2. Administrative Supervision: The President has the residual authority to oversee and direct the operations of the executive branch, including the management of government agencies and departments, particularly when the law is silent on the exact procedures or actions to be taken in a given situation.

3. Diplomatic Powers: Under public international law, the President, as the head of state, has residual powers to engage in international relations, negotiations, and the formation of treaties, subject to Senate concurrence. In cases of urgent international issues or when specific legal authority is lacking, the President may act in the best interest of the state to maintain foreign relations.

4. Emergency Powers: Although specific laws may grant the President emergency powers (such as the delegation of legislative powers during emergencies), the residual powers can also cover situations where the law is silent on how to address crises that threaten national security or public order. The President may take actions necessary to safeguard the country, subject to constitutional limits and judicial review.

5. Control over the Military: As the Commander-in-Chief under Article VII, Section 18, the President has control over the Armed Forces of the Philippines. While specific military operations or deployments may be regulated by law, the President retains residual powers to make decisions on military matters not specifically addressed by legislation, particularly in times of national emergency or conflict.

Limitations on Residual Powers

While residual powers grant flexibility to the President, these powers are not absolute and must operate within constitutional and legal limits. The following are key limitations:

1. Constitutional Boundaries: The President’s residual powers cannot contravene express provisions of the Constitution. Actions taken under residual powers must be consistent with fundamental rights and liberties, such as due process, equal protection, and the rule of law.

2. Separation of Powers: Residual powers must respect the division of powers among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial). The President cannot encroach upon the powers specifically reserved to Congress or the Judiciary.

   • Example: The President may issue executive orders under residual powers, but cannot create laws or modify existing laws, as this would infringe on the legislative power of Congress.

3. Judicial Review: The exercise of residual powers is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. The Court may invalidate actions taken under residual powers if they are deemed to exceed the constitutional or legal bounds of executive authority.

4. Public Accountability: As part of the system of checks and balances, the exercise of residual powers is also subject to scrutiny by Congress, civil society, and the public. Impeachment proceedings, investigations, or legislative inquiries may be initiated if the President is perceived to have abused residual powers.

5. Treaty-making: While the President can negotiate and enter into treaties as part of his residual diplomatic powers, these treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate (Article VII, Section 21). Thus, residual powers in the international arena are still subject to constitutional checks.

6. Statutory Limitations: If Congress passes a law that directly addresses a situation previously governed by residual powers, the law will prevail, and the President must act in accordance with the statute. Congress may also enact laws that further define or limit the exercise of residual powers.

Key Judicial Precedents

The Philippine Supreme Court has recognized and upheld the residual powers of the President in several landmark cases, such as:

1. Marcos v. Manglapus (1989):

   • The Supreme Court upheld the residual power of the President to control the entry of former President Ferdinand Marcos into the country, citing the need for executive discretion in matters concerning national security and public order.
   • The Court emphasized that the President has broad residual powers to act in situations where the law is silent, especially in matters affecting national security and foreign relations.

2. Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004):

   • This case clarified the limits of the President's residual powers in declaring a "state of rebellion." The Court ruled that while the President may have residual powers to act in times of emergency, such declarations do not necessarily have legal consequences, especially when specific laws on the matter exist (e.g., the Human Security Act or the Constitution’s provisions on martial law).

3. David v. Arroyo (2006):

   • The Supreme Court ruled on the President’s residual powers during the declaration of a state of national emergency under Proclamation 1017. The Court held that while the President has the authority to declare a national emergency, residual powers do not include the ability to usurp legislative powers, such as imposing restrictions that require congressional approval.

Conclusion

The residual powers of the President play a crucial role in maintaining the flexibility and responsiveness of the executive branch, particularly in dealing with unforeseen circumstances. These powers are inherent to the office of the President and are used to address gaps in the law where urgent executive action is needed. However, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution, subject to judicial review, and under the principle of separation of powers.

Delegated powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Delegated Powers of the President under Political Law and Public International Law

1. Definition of Delegated Powers

Delegated powers refer to those powers that the President exercises not by virtue of inherent executive powers, but because these have been delegated to him or her by another body, typically the legislature, through statutes or resolutions. These powers are conferred on the President by Congress, or in some cases, by international agreements, to carry out specific functions that are not inherently within the executive domain. Delegation allows the executive to perform certain tasks efficiently and address specific issues that require swift or specialized action.

2. Basis for Delegated Powers

The doctrine of separation of powers under the Philippine Constitution vests specific powers in each branch of government—the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. While executive powers are generally vested in the President under Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are instances where Congress may delegate certain functions to the President, especially for matters that require expertise, expediency, or flexibility in implementation. This delegation, however, is subject to constitutional limitations to prevent the undue concentration of power in one branch of government.

3. Constitutional Basis for Delegation

• Article VI, Section 23 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides a key instance where Congress may delegate power to the President:

  "In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy."

  This provision allows Congress to delegate powers to the President, particularly in emergency situations where the executive needs expanded authority to act swiftly in the national interest.

4. Requirements for Valid Delegation

Delegation of legislative power is generally disfavored because it conflicts with the doctrine of separation of powers. However, it is allowed under certain conditions, specifically:

• Completeness test: The law delegating power must be complete in itself, outlining the policy to be carried out, and leaving only the execution of the law to the President or the delegated authority.
• Sufficient standard test: The law must provide sufficient standards to guide the delegate in the exercise of the power. It should outline clear parameters within which the President must act, to prevent arbitrary or unguided discretion.

These tests ensure that the delegated powers do not amount to an unconstitutional abdication of legislative power.

5. Examples of Delegated Powers to the President

1. Emergency Powers: As discussed earlier, Congress may delegate emergency powers to the President during times of national emergency or crisis. This delegation is often done through emergency legislation that empowers the President to issue regulations, take over certain industries, or reallocate resources without the usual bureaucratic processes.

   For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act) granted the President specific emergency powers to address the public health crisis, allowing for the reallocation of funds and the implementation of programs to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.

2. Tariff and Customs Powers: Under Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code, Congress has delegated to the President the power to impose tariff rates, import and export restrictions, and quotas. This delegation allows the President to respond quickly to economic conditions and foreign trade policies by adjusting tariffs and customs duties without waiting for Congress to pass legislation on each specific instance.

3. Delegated Powers in Public International Law: The President, as the primary representative of the Philippines in international relations, exercises certain powers delegated by Congress in relation to treaties, international agreements, and trade deals. For example, while treaty ratification requires Senate concurrence, Congress may delegate to the President the authority to negotiate and enter into executive agreements with other countries. These agreements do not require Senate approval but must still conform to Philippine law.

   • Executive Agreements: These are a form of international agreement entered into by the President and do not require Senate ratification, unlike treaties. The President is often given the power to enter into these agreements under specific enabling laws or where the agreement is necessary to implement existing treaties or legislation.

4. Delegation of Powers under International Commitments: The President also exercises delegated powers in implementing international obligations, such as those under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or ASEAN agreements. Congress may pass enabling laws allowing the President to act in line with the Philippines’ international commitments, such as adjusting tariff rates or enacting trade measures pursuant to these multilateral agreements.

5. Borrowing Powers: Under the Foreign Borrowing Act (Republic Act No. 4860), Congress has delegated to the President the authority to contract foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This power is subject to conditions, such as prior approval by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to ensure that foreign loans remain within manageable levels.

6. Budgetary Adjustments: Under the General Appropriations Act (GAA), Congress may delegate to the President certain flexibility in the allocation and realignment of funds, particularly through the use of savings or contingency funds. For example, the President is often given authority to declare savings in one part of the budget and use them for another purpose, subject to conditions laid down in the GAA.

6. Limitations on Delegated Powers

Although Congress may delegate certain powers to the President, the delegation is always subject to limitations and must comply with constitutional safeguards:

• Non-delegation doctrine: The principle of non-delegation prevents Congress from delegating powers that are inherently legislative in nature, such as making laws or deciding on policy matters. Congress may delegate only the authority to execute or implement laws, not to make them.

• Judicial Review: The exercise of delegated powers by the President is subject to judicial review. The courts may strike down actions taken by the President if they are found to be in excess of the delegated authority or violate constitutional standards. For instance, if the President’s emergency powers exceed the limitations imposed by Congress, the courts may invalidate the actions.

• Temporary Delegation: Delegated powers, particularly emergency powers, must be time-bound. Congress must set clear limits on the duration of the delegated authority, ensuring that the powers revert to Congress once the national emergency or specified period is over.

• Accountability and Oversight: Congress retains oversight over the exercise of delegated powers. The President must report to Congress on the actions taken pursuant to the delegation, and Congress may amend, repeal, or modify the law granting the delegated authority if it deems the President’s actions inappropriate or unnecessary.

7. Conclusion

Delegated powers provide the President with the necessary tools to address pressing issues that require swift and decisive action, particularly in emergencies, economic management, and international relations. However, the delegation of power is carefully circumscribed by constitutional safeguards, including the completeness and sufficient standard tests, judicial review, and legislative oversight, to prevent the excessive concentration of power in the executive branch. The balance between efficient governance and adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers is thus maintained through these limitations.

Powers Relative to Appropriation Measures | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

8. Powers Relative to Appropriation Measures

---

I. General Principles

The President’s powers relative to appropriation measures are a critical component of executive authority, balancing the legislative power of the purse with the President's constitutional role in executing laws. Appropriation measures pertain to laws that allocate or authorize the disbursement of government funds for specific purposes. The interaction between the President and Congress, particularly on budgetary issues, is defined by several constitutional provisions and established jurisprudence.

The President’s powers relative to appropriation measures can be categorized into two broad areas: proposing the budget and vetoing or approving appropriation measures.

---

II. The President's Role in the Budget Process

A. Proposal of the National Budget (Budgetary Initiative)

1. Section 22, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the President shall submit to Congress, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

   • This is part of the executive power of budget preparation. The national budget submitted by the President reflects the executive branch’s plan for how public funds should be allocated for the upcoming fiscal year. This is submitted in the form of the General Appropriations Bill (GAB).

2. The preparation of the budget proposal is primarily coordinated by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The President directs the DBM to craft a budget consistent with national priorities, economic conditions, and revenue projections.

3. The executive budget proposal sets the framework for government fiscal policy and reflects the President's administration's policy priorities. It is considered a political document that reflects the socio-economic goals of the administration.

---

B. Line-Item Veto Power

1. Section 27(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution grants the President a line-item veto power in appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills. This power allows the President to selectively veto particular items in an appropriations bill without vetoing the entire bill.

   • Line-item veto is a significant mechanism that allows the President to exercise fiscal discipline and control public spending. It is aimed at curbing unnecessary or excessive appropriations inserted by Congress, especially those that could lead to a bloated budget or compromise the fiscal sustainability of the government.

2. Scope of the Line-Item Veto:

   • The veto applies only to items of appropriations in an appropriation bill. Items must be specific appropriations of money for particular purposes. If a portion of the bill is not an item of appropriation but a provision of general law, the President may not veto it through the line-item veto.
   • The Supreme Court in PHILCONSA v. Enriquez (1994) ruled that a provision within the General Appropriations Act (GAA) that does not appropriate funds is not an item of appropriation. Thus, it cannot be subject to a line-item veto.

3. Veto Messages: When the President exercises the line-item veto, the vetoed items are returned to Congress with a veto message specifying the reasons for the rejection. Congress can reconsider the vetoed items and may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all its members.

---

C. Authority over Contingency Funds and the Power to Reallocate or Rescind Appropriations

1. Power to Realign or Transfer Appropriations (Sec. 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution):

   • The President is prohibited from transferring appropriations; however, transfers may be allowed under the following conditions:
     • If authorized by law;
     • If the transfer is from savings in other appropriations;
     • The purpose of the transfer must be to augment another item in the GAA.

2. Savings:

   • Savings refer to portions of funds appropriated that are no longer needed for their original purpose due to completed projects, under-spending, or cancellation of programs.
   • The President, along with other heads of the executive departments, can declare savings from appropriations and use these savings to augment other items of appropriations, but only in accordance with the law.

   Jurisprudence on the Use of Savings:

   • In Araullo v. Aquino (2014), the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), declaring unconstitutional certain acts of the Executive Department involving the realignment and use of savings beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The decision highlighted the limits on the President’s power to use savings and realign funds, reaffirming the importance of congressional authority over the budget.

3. Unprogrammed Funds and Presidential Discretionary Funds:

   • Unprogrammed funds, typically included in the GAA, are subject to the availability of excess revenue collections or new borrowings. The release of such funds is largely discretionary to the President, depending on the fiscal situation.

---

III. The Power to Approve or Veto Appropriation Bills

A. General Appropriations Act (GAA)

1. Legislative Process:

   • The General Appropriations Bill (GAB), once passed by Congress, is sent to the President for approval. The GAA becomes the law authorizing the expenditure of public funds for the specific fiscal year.

2. Power to Veto:

   • The President may veto the entire appropriations bill or specific provisions (via line-item veto). If vetoed, the previous year’s GAA is reenacted until a new appropriations law is passed.

3. Partial Veto: As previously mentioned, the line-item veto power allows the President to veto specific items in the budget while approving the rest of the appropriation bill, thereby preventing a total shutdown of government operations while exercising fiscal prudence.

B. Reenacted Budget

1. Effect of Reenacted Budget:

   • If Congress fails to pass a new appropriations bill, the previous year's budget is automatically reenacted until a new one is approved. Under a reenacted budget, only amounts that were authorized in the previous year’s GAA may be spent, effectively limiting the President's ability to allocate new funds to projects that were not part of the previous budget.

2. Challenges and Implications of a Reenacted Budget:

   • A reenacted budget constrains the President’s capacity to implement new programs or policies. It also limits capital outlay spending since only ongoing projects may continue receiving funding, barring any new appropriations for infrastructure or development initiatives.

---

IV. Special Appropriation Measures

A. Supplementary Appropriations

• The President, through the DBM, may recommend to Congress a supplementary appropriations bill when additional funding is needed for unforeseen expenditures or emergencies not covered in the GAA. These measures must also specify where the funding will come from, ensuring that additional appropriations are backed by adequate revenue sources.

B. Special Funds

• The President also has control over special purpose funds such as the Contingency Fund, the Calamity Fund, and other lump sum allocations in the budget. The use of these funds is generally discretionary but must comply with existing laws and regulations.

C. Presidential Power in Times of National Emergency

• Under Section 23(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, in times of war or other national emergencies, Congress may grant the President emergency powers, including the ability to realign appropriations to address the emergency. This provision ensures that the executive has flexibility in utilizing the nation’s resources during crises.

---

V. Conclusion

The President's powers relative to appropriation measures reflect a delicate balance between executive discretion in the management of public funds and the constitutional limits imposed by the principle of legislative control over the budget. The powers of the President, including the preparation of the budget, line-item veto authority, and the management of savings, are subject to strict constitutional limitations aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and respect for the legislative power of appropriation. Jurisprudence, such as in the DAP case, underscores the importance of adhering to these constitutional boundaries.

Entry into Treaties or International Agreements; Withdrawal and Termination | Diplomatic power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Entry into Treaties or International Agreements; Withdrawal and Termination (Diplomatic Power of the President)

1. Constitutional Basis

The diplomatic power of the President of the Philippines to enter into treaties or international agreements is rooted in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Under Article VII, Section 21, the President, as the chief architect of foreign policy, is authorized to enter into treaties or international agreements with the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.

The relevant provision states:

“No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”

2. Treaties vs. Executive Agreements

There are two main categories of international commitments the President can enter into: treaties and executive agreements.

• Treaties require Senate concurrence and are formal agreements between states or international organizations that cover important matters such as territorial boundaries, defense, trade, or human rights.
• Executive Agreements, on the other hand, do not require Senate concurrence but must conform to existing laws or treaties. They are often administrative or operational in nature and typically involve matters like trade facilitation or military cooperation under existing frameworks.

The distinction between treaties and executive agreements was reiterated in Bayan v. Executive Secretary (2000), where the Supreme Court held that the President can enter into executive agreements on matters already covered by existing treaties or law, without needing Senate approval.

3. Process of Entering into Treaties

The steps for the entry into treaties generally follow this sequence:

1. Negotiation: The President, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), initiates or participates in negotiations with other states or international organizations.

2. Signing: Once the text of the treaty is finalized, it is signed by the authorized representatives of the negotiating parties. In the case of the Philippines, this would typically be the President or a duly designated official, such as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

3. Senate Concurrence: After the treaty is signed, it is submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Senate may approve the treaty through a resolution of concurrence, requiring the votes of at least two-thirds of all its members.

4. Ratification: Following Senate concurrence, the President formally ratifies the treaty, signifying the Philippines’ consent to be bound by its terms.

5. Effectivity: The treaty becomes binding on the Philippines according to its terms, which may include the deposit of instruments of ratification with the appropriate international body or the exchange of ratifications with the other state(s) party to the treaty.

4. Withdrawal from Treaties

The issue of withdrawal from treaties or international agreements has been controversial in Philippine legal and political discourse.

• There is no explicit provision in the Constitution governing the process of withdrawal from treaties. This has led to debates on whether Senate concurrence is necessary for the withdrawal, as it is for the ratification process.

• In Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2005), the Supreme Court noted that while the President has the authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, there is ambiguity in the Constitution as to whether the President can unilaterally withdraw from treaties without Senate concurrence. The case did not resolve the issue fully but left room for future legal interpretation.

• However, in Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011), the Supreme Court opined that the President, in withdrawing from an agreement, was exercising inherent executive power related to foreign relations. Therefore, it affirmed the President's discretion to withdraw from international agreements without Senate concurrence, provided that the withdrawal is consistent with the treaty's provisions and international law.

5. Termination of Treaties

Treaties and international agreements typically contain provisions governing their termination, which can include the following methods:

• Expiration: Some treaties are time-bound and expire after a specific period unless renewed by the parties.
• Mutual Agreement: The parties to a treaty may agree to terminate it at any time.
• Breach of Treaty: A material breach by one party can allow the other to invoke the treaty’s termination provisions.
• Notice of Termination: A state may unilaterally withdraw from or terminate a treaty by giving notice, in accordance with the terms of the treaty. Most treaties specify the notice period required for such a withdrawal or termination to take effect.

6. Recent Case Law and Jurisprudence

Several landmark cases have addressed the powers of the President with respect to international agreements:

• Bayan v. Executive Secretary (2000): This case clarified that executive agreements are distinct from treaties and may be validly entered into by the President without Senate concurrence, provided they do not contravene existing laws or treaties.

• Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the President has the authority to enter into executive agreements and emphasized the flexibility needed in foreign relations.

• Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2005): Although the Court did not definitively settle whether Senate concurrence is required for treaty withdrawals, it did raise important questions about the need for constitutional checks on the President's foreign policy powers.

• Presidential Powers and the VFA: In the case of Saguisag v. Executive Secretary (2016), the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was upheld as a valid executive agreement, illustrating how security and defense-related matters can be handled without the need for Senate ratification, provided they align with existing frameworks like the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.

7. Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC)

A recent significant example of the President’s power to withdraw from treaties involved the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

• In 2018, President Rodrigo Duterte announced the Philippines' withdrawal from the ICC following criticisms of his administration's drug war. The withdrawal was formalized in March 2019.
• There was no Senate concurrence in the withdrawal. Critics, including some Senators, argued that the Constitution requires Senate participation in both the ratification and withdrawal processes.
• The Supreme Court was petitioned to rule on the issue in Senators Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2019). While the case raised important constitutional questions about the limits of executive power in foreign affairs, the withdrawal became effective before the Court could rule definitively on the matter.

Conclusion

The power to enter into treaties or international agreements, as well as the authority to withdraw from or terminate them, is a critical component of the President's diplomatic powers. While the President enjoys broad discretion in foreign policy, particularly through the use of executive agreements, the requirement for Senate concurrence in treaty ratification acts as a constitutional check on the executive. However, the issue of whether the same concurrence is necessary for treaty withdrawal remains a contentious legal question in Philippine jurisprudence.

To Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans | Diplomatic power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Diplomatic Power of the President: To Contract or Guarantee Foreign Loans

1. Constitutional Basis

The power of the President to contract or guarantee foreign loans is derived from the Constitution. The Philippine Constitution of 1987, specifically Article VII (Executive Department), vests the President with diplomatic and borrowing powers, subject to conditions and limitations imposed by law.

• Article VII, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution states:

  “The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law.”

This provision outlines the requirement of Monetary Board concurrence and reports to Congress as checks on the President’s power to borrow or guarantee loans on behalf of the government.

2. Requirements and Conditions

The President's power to contract or guarantee foreign loans is not absolute. It is subject to several requirements and conditions:

• Prior Concurrence of the Monetary Board:

  • Before the President can contract or guarantee any foreign loan, the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) must first give its approval. The Monetary Board is responsible for determining the economic viability and sustainability of these loans, ensuring that they do not unduly increase the foreign debt or burden the economy.

  • The approval process by the Monetary Board includes a comprehensive review of the loan terms, interest rates, payment schedule, and the project or purpose for which the loan is being sought.

• Limitations Imposed by Law:

  • Foreign loans contracted or guaranteed by the President must also conform to limitations set by law. These laws may include provisions on debt ceilings, borrowing procedures, and guidelines on the use of foreign loans.
  • For example, Republic Act No. 4860, or the "Foreign Borrowings Act," sets guidelines on how foreign loans should be contracted, ensuring transparency and the proper use of these loans for national projects or purposes.

• Reporting to Congress:

  • The Monetary Board is mandated to submit a report to Congress within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This report must detail all foreign loans contracted or guaranteed by the government and its government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), with particular attention to loans that would increase the foreign debt.

  • This report enhances transparency and ensures legislative oversight over foreign borrowing, allowing Congress to monitor and address any concerns regarding the management of foreign loans and their impact on national debt.

3. Nature and Scope of the Power

• Contracting Foreign Loans: The President can enter into agreements for foreign loans, which can be used to fund government projects, support infrastructure development, or finance public expenditures. The loans are typically secured from foreign governments, international financial institutions (such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund), or other external sources.

• Guaranteeing Foreign Loans: The President may also guarantee foreign loans, which means the Philippine government acts as a guarantor for loans taken by government agencies, GOCCs, or even private entities in some instances. This entails the government taking responsibility for repayment if the primary borrower defaults. The guarantee is a risk undertaken by the state to facilitate borrowing for critical projects, particularly in public-private partnerships or key infrastructure developments.

4. Limitations on Borrowing

• Debt Ceiling: One of the significant limitations placed on the power to borrow foreign loans is the imposition of a debt ceiling. This ceiling is designed to ensure that the country does not accumulate an unsustainable level of foreign debt that could lead to financial instability or insolvency.

• Purpose of Foreign Loans: The foreign loans contracted or guaranteed must serve specific purposes that benefit the public. Typically, these loans are used to finance essential government projects, such as infrastructure development (roads, bridges, ports, etc.), disaster relief, economic recovery programs, and other national development initiatives.

5. Legal Framework and Jurisprudence

• Republic Act No. 4860 (Foreign Borrowings Act): This law provides additional guidance on the borrowing process, including limitations on the purposes of foreign loans, oversight mechanisms, and procedures that the government must follow when contracting foreign loans. It supplements the constitutional provisions by specifying legal boundaries within which the President must operate.

• Jurisprudence: Philippine jurisprudence on the President’s power to contract or guarantee foreign loans revolves around the concepts of executive discretion and legislative oversight. The courts have consistently upheld that while the President enjoys broad discretion in managing foreign relations and securing foreign loans, these powers are subject to constitutional and statutory limitations.

  Noteworthy cases in this area include discussions on the role of the Monetary Board in ensuring fiscal prudence and the constitutional obligation of the President to operate within the boundaries of law when contracting foreign loans.

6. Impact on Foreign Relations

Foreign loans are a crucial aspect of international relations. The President’s ability to contract or guarantee such loans plays a vital role in fostering bilateral and multilateral relationships. These loans can often be tied to foreign aid, development assistance, or economic cooperation agreements.

When contracting loans from foreign governments or international institutions, the President must also balance the economic and diplomatic implications of such borrowings. Foreign loans often come with conditions or expectations, and the President must ensure that the terms of the loans align with the national interest and do not undermine sovereignty or economic independence.

7. Checks and Balances

• Monetary Board Oversight: The requirement of Monetary Board concurrence serves as an essential check on the President’s borrowing powers. The Board ensures that the foreign loan is economically viable, necessary, and within sustainable debt levels.

• Congressional Oversight: The obligation to report to Congress ensures that the legislative branch remains informed of the foreign loans contracted or guaranteed by the President. Congress has the authority to pass laws that further regulate or limit the foreign borrowing activities of the Executive.

• Judicial Review: Although rare, the judiciary can intervene in instances where there is a question of constitutionality or legality regarding the President's exercise of this power. For instance, if a foreign loan is contracted without the necessary Monetary Board concurrence or beyond the legal limits, it may be subject to judicial scrutiny.

Summary

The power of the President to contract or guarantee foreign loans is a significant facet of the Executive’s diplomatic and financial authority, grounded in the Constitution and regulated by laws like Republic Act No. 4860. While the President holds broad discretion in this area, it is subject to checks and balances such as Monetary Board approval, Congressional oversight, and legal limitations. This ensures that foreign loans are used prudently, transparently, and in the national interest, while maintaining economic stability and protecting public welfare.

In General | Diplomatic power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Diplomatic Powers of the President: An In-Depth Analysis

Under the Philippine Constitution, the President, as the head of state, is vested with extensive powers related to foreign affairs and diplomacy. These diplomatic powers are primarily derived from Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the President the authority to enter into treaties and international agreements, subject to certain limitations and requirements. These powers are foundational to the President's role in shaping and executing the country’s foreign policy and maintaining international relations.

A. Overview of Diplomatic Power

The diplomatic power of the President refers to the authority to represent the country in international affairs, conduct diplomacy, and negotiate and enter into treaties and executive agreements with other states and international organizations. Diplomatic power is part of the larger executive power granted to the President under Article VII of the Constitution, making the President the principal actor in foreign relations.

The Constitution provides a framework for these powers, and the Philippine Supreme Court has interpreted and clarified the extent of the President's authority in several landmark cases.

B. Sources of Diplomatic Power

1. Constitutional Basis

   • Article VII, Section 21: This provision grants the President the power to enter into treaties and international agreements. However, for treaties and international agreements to be valid and enforceable in the Philippines, they must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
   • Article II, Section 2: This establishes that the Philippines adheres to generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.

2. Statutory and Jurisprudential Foundations

   • The President’s diplomatic power is further elaborated upon and interpreted through various statutes and decisions of the Supreme Court. Notable cases have delved into the distinctions between treaties and executive agreements and have set boundaries for the President’s exercise of this power.

C. Components of Diplomatic Power

1. Treaty-Making Power

   • Treaties are formal, written agreements between sovereign states or between states and international organizations, governed by international law. Under Article VII, Section 21, treaties entered into by the President require Senate concurrence with a two-thirds majority for their validity.
   • The Senate's role in treaty-making is an essential check on the President’s power. The Senate does not negotiate treaties but serves as a reviewing body, ensuring that treaties are in the nation’s best interest.

2. Executive Agreements

   • In addition to treaties, the President may enter into executive agreements, which do not require Senate concurrence. Executive agreements are more flexible than treaties and may cover a wide range of matters, from trade to military cooperation.
   • The Supreme Court, in cases like Bayan v. Zamora and Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, has clarified that executive agreements are binding and valid under international law as long as they do not violate existing laws or treaties.
   • Executive agreements are typically used for matters of less formal importance than treaties, such as administrative agreements between government agencies or technical cooperation agreements.

3. Diplomatic Recognition

   • The President has the authority to recognize foreign states and governments. Diplomatic recognition is crucial in international relations, as it signifies the Philippines’ acknowledgment of another state’s legitimacy and sovereignty.
   • Recognition of foreign states or governments is a political act, and courts generally refrain from interfering with the President’s exercise of this power, as it involves sensitive matters of foreign policy.

4. Appointment of Ambassadors and Consuls

   • The President, as the chief architect of foreign policy, has the power to appoint ambassadors, consuls, and other diplomatic officers. These appointments require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments under Article VII, Section 16.
   • Ambassadors and diplomatic agents represent the country abroad, protect the interests of the Philippines and its citizens, and engage in diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the President.

5. Conduct of Diplomatic Relations

   • The President oversees the conduct of all foreign affairs through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). The DFA executes the President’s diplomatic agenda, maintains embassies and consulates, and manages relations with international organizations.
   • In times of crisis, such as armed conflict or diplomatic disputes, the President is empowered to direct the DFA in negotiations, manage international sanctions, and implement foreign policy initiatives.

D. Limitations and Checks on the President’s Diplomatic Power

1. Senate Concurrence

   • For treaties to be valid, the President must obtain the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the Senate. This serves as a significant limitation, ensuring that the President cannot unilaterally bind the country to international agreements that may have far-reaching consequences.

2. Judicial Review

   • While the Supreme Court traditionally exercises judicial restraint in matters of diplomacy, it retains the authority to review the constitutionality of treaties and executive agreements. For example, the Court in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary ruled on the validity of international agreements related to the presence of foreign military forces in the Philippines.

3. Principles of International Law

   • The exercise of diplomatic power must conform to generally accepted principles of international law, such as respect for state sovereignty, non-intervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The Philippines, as a member of the United Nations and other international bodies, is bound by international treaties and conventions it has ratified.

4. Legislative Oversight

   • Although the President exercises significant discretion in diplomatic matters, Congress has oversight functions, particularly regarding budget appropriations for foreign affairs and defense, and the conduct of foreign policy in relation to national security and economic welfare.

5. Public Accountability

   • The President is politically accountable to the people and can be questioned for actions in the diplomatic sphere. Public opinion, international reputation, and potential diplomatic consequences act as informal checks on the President’s exercise of diplomatic power.

E. Key Jurisprudence on Diplomatic Power

1. Bayan v. Zamora (2000)

   • This case revolved around the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the VFA as an executive agreement, ruling that the agreement was entered into pursuant to a previous treaty (the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951) and thus did not require Senate concurrence.

2. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2005)

   • In this case, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of an agreement between the Philippines and the United States regarding the stationing of foreign troops. The Court held that while the agreement involved national security, it was ultimately a political question and within the President’s discretion, subject to legislative concurrence for treaties but not for executive agreements.

3. Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading (1961)

   • This case distinguished between treaties and executive agreements. The Court clarified that while treaties require Senate concurrence, executive agreements do not, provided they do not conflict with existing laws or require legislative action for their implementation.

F. Conclusion

The diplomatic powers of the President are integral to the country’s conduct of foreign relations and its interactions with the international community. While the President enjoys considerable authority in this realm, the Constitution imposes checks and balances, particularly through Senate concurrence for treaties, judicial review of constitutional issues, and adherence to international law. Through the careful exercise of diplomatic power, the President plays a crucial role in protecting national interests, fostering international cooperation, and ensuring the Philippines' standing in the global community.

Forms of Executive Clemency | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

6. Pardoning Power

The pardoning power is a key aspect of the executive authority vested in the President of the Philippines. This power allows the President to extend clemency to individuals convicted of crimes, mitigating the consequences of criminal liability. It is primarily provided for under Article VII, Section 19 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

"Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress."

This provision delineates the scope, limitations, and forms of executive clemency, which includes reprieves, commutations, pardons, remission of fines and forfeitures, and amnesty.

Forms of Executive Clemency

1. Pardon

   • Definition: A pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime they have committed.

   • Types of Pardon:

     • Absolute Pardon: This fully extinguishes the criminal liability of the individual, effectively absolving them from the legal consequences of the offense and restoring their civil and political rights. However, an absolute pardon does not erase the fact of conviction.
     • Conditional Pardon: This imposes certain conditions upon the grantee, which, if violated, can result in the revocation of the pardon and restoration of the original penalty.

   • Requirements and Effects:

     • A pardon can only be granted after final conviction by a court of law.
     • A pardon does not extinguish civil liability unless expressly stipulated. Civil liabilities to private complainants may still be enforced.
     • In cases of absolute pardon, the grantee’s eligibility for reemployment in government service or for candidacy for public office is restored, provided that the pardon explicitly states so. However, the grantee must still seek judicial clearance or certification of their restored rights for specific purposes like running for office or being appointed to a government position.

2. Commutation

   • Definition: Commutation refers to the reduction or alteration of the penalty to a lesser form. It is not a forgiveness of the crime but a mitigation of the sentence.
   • Application: The President may reduce a sentence (e.g., from death to life imprisonment or from life imprisonment to a determinate number of years). This is often applied in cases where the original penalty is deemed excessively harsh or when there are compelling humanitarian reasons.
   • Effects: It alters the penalty but does not extinguish the underlying conviction or civil liability. Like pardons, it applies after final conviction.

3. Reprieve

   • Definition: A reprieve is a temporary postponement of the execution of a sentence, typically granted to allow the courts or the executive branch time to review the case for clemency or to resolve appeals.
   • Scope: This is typically applied in cases where the sentence is severe, such as the death penalty (when it was still in effect), and is used as a temporary relief, pending a review or petition for clemency.
   • Effects: A reprieve delays the execution of the penalty but does not alter or reduce the sentence. It is a temporary measure of relief.

4. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures

   • Definition: The remission of fines or forfeitures refers to the cancellation or reduction of monetary penalties or the return of property seized by the government as part of a criminal conviction.
   • Application: The President can remit fines or forfeitures wholly or partially, thereby lessening the financial burden imposed on the convict.
   • Effects: Like a reprieve, it does not extinguish the criminal liability or civil obligations stemming from the offense, unless explicitly provided.

5. Amnesty

   • Definition: Amnesty is a more extensive form of clemency than pardon, as it applies to classes or categories of individuals, typically those involved in political crimes like rebellion or sedition. It results in the obliteration of the offense and its effects, treating the act as if it never occurred.
   • Concurrence of Congress: The President cannot grant amnesty unilaterally. It requires the concurrence of a majority of all Members of Congress. This distinguishes amnesty from pardon, which is an exclusive presidential prerogative.
   • Effects: Amnesty extinguishes the crime itself and its legal consequences, including criminal and civil liabilities, as though no offense was committed.

Limitations on the Pardoning Power

1. Conviction by Final Judgment: The Constitution mandates that clemency can only be granted after conviction by final judgment, except in the case of amnesty, which can be applied to those who have not yet been convicted. This requirement is a safeguard to ensure that the judicial process has fully determined guilt before the executive intervenes.

2. Impeachment: The President’s pardoning power does not extend to cases of impeachment. Public officials impeached and convicted by the Senate cannot be pardoned by the President. This is to preserve the constitutional balance of powers and the accountability of public officials.

3. No Power to Pardon Electoral Offenses (Election Code): The Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) prohibits the President from pardoning individuals convicted of electoral offenses, except upon the recommendation of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This limitation underscores the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.

Judicial Review and Pardoning Power

The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the exercise of the pardoning power by the President is not subject to judicial review, except in cases where it can be shown that the President acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the landmark case of Monsanto v. Factoran (G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989), the Supreme Court clarified that executive clemency does not automatically erase the conviction but removes the penalty and restores civil rights in cases of absolute pardon.

Conclusion

The pardoning power of the President is a critical aspect of the Executive Department’s authority, serving as a means to temper the rigors of law with mercy. The Constitution provides clear forms of clemency, each with distinct legal consequences, from full forgiveness (absolute pardon) to temporary relief (reprieve) or the complete obliteration of criminal liability (amnesty). This power, however, is circumscribed by constitutional limits to ensure that it is exercised judiciously and in a manner consistent with public interest and justice.

Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Pardoning Power of the President: Scope and Limitations

The pardoning power is one of the executive powers granted to the President under the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. This power is embodied in Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution, which provides:

“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.”

This provision provides a broad authority to the President to intervene in criminal convictions, with certain specific exceptions and limitations.

I. Scope of the Pardoning Power

1. Types of Clemency The pardoning power includes the following forms of executive clemency:

   • Pardon: This is the most commonly known form of clemency. It may be absolute (unconditional) or conditional, and it results in the full or partial remission of the legal consequences of a conviction.
     • Absolute Pardon: Fully extinguishes the criminal liability of the individual and restores his civil and political rights, although it does not restore property rights forfeited under the conviction.
     • Conditional Pardon: This pardon is subject to certain conditions, which, if violated, may result in the restoration of the original penalty.
   • Commutation of Sentence: A reduction of the length of a sentence without absolving the underlying conviction.
   • Reprieve: A temporary postponement of the execution of a sentence, typically used in death penalty cases.
   • Remission of Fines and Forfeitures: The President may remit fines and forfeitures imposed as part of a criminal conviction, essentially reducing or eliminating financial penalties.

2. After Conviction by Final Judgment The exercise of the pardoning power can only be done after conviction by final judgment. This means:

   • A pardon or other forms of clemency cannot be granted before a person is convicted by a court of law.
   • The judicial process must be completed, and the judgment must have attained finality, meaning there can no longer be any appeal or motion for reconsideration available to the convicted individual.

   Note: A pardon does not imply that the President finds the individual innocent; it is an act of grace, not a judicial act.

3. No Power to Pardon Administrative Offenses The pardoning power of the President extends only to criminal offenses. It cannot be exercised over administrative cases or penalties. This is a distinction upheld in various Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that administrative penalties (such as those imposed on government officials) are outside the scope of the pardoning power.

4. Effect on Civil and Political Rights

   • In cases of absolute pardon, the criminal liability is fully extinguished, and the individual's civil and political rights are restored. However, the restoration of property rights is not automatic, as this would require a separate legal process.
   • A conditional pardon does not restore civil and political rights until all conditions are fulfilled.

II. Limitations of the Pardoning Power

1. Impeachment Cases The President cannot grant pardon in cases of impeachment. This is explicitly provided in the Constitution to prevent the President from using the power of pardon to protect impeached officials, including the President himself or herself, from removal from office.

   Impeachment is a political process that applies to high-ranking officials such as the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The prohibition aims to maintain the integrity of the impeachment process.

2. Cases of Legislative Contempt The President cannot pardon individuals found in contempt by the legislative body (Congress). The power of contempt is a necessary function of legislative investigations in aid of legislation, and allowing pardon in these cases would undermine legislative authority.

3. Effect on Private Rights A pardon does not affect the civil liability of the individual. Criminal convictions often come with both criminal and civil liability (e.g., damages to the victim). While the President can pardon the criminal aspect of the case, the pardon does not extinguish civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense, such as payment for damages to the victim or restitution.

4. Non-Retroactivity Pardon operates prospectively and does not change the facts of the case. It cannot change the status of a conviction that occurred before the pardon was granted. The pardon simply erases the continuing legal effects of the conviction.

5. Cases Involving Election Laws Under the Omnibus Election Code, the President cannot pardon an offense related to elections unless there is a favorable recommendation from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This safeguard ensures that the independence and integrity of the electoral process are upheld.

6. Limited to Criminal Offenses As previously mentioned, the President's pardoning power applies only to criminal offenses. It cannot be used to affect administrative sanctions, civil cases, or other non-criminal liabilities.

7. No Pardon for Future Crimes The President cannot grant pardon for crimes not yet committed. The power is exercised only after a conviction for a criminal act that has already occurred and been adjudicated.

III. Judicial Review of the Pardoning Power

The general rule is that the pardoning power is discretionary and cannot be questioned by the courts. However, the Supreme Court has occasionally reviewed the exercise of the pardoning power under specific circumstances where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

For example, if the exercise of the pardoning power is manifestly contrary to law or used in a manner that violates constitutional limits (e.g., pardoning someone for an impeachable offense), the courts may intervene through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, this is an exceptional remedy and requires showing that the executive acted in a way that was capricious, arbitrary, or oppressive.

IV. Notable Case Law

1. Monsanto v. Factoran (G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an absolute pardon restores civil and political rights but does not automatically reinstate property rights that were forfeited as part of the conviction. The forfeiture must be the subject of separate judicial proceedings to restore the property rights.

2. Llamas v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991): The Supreme Court emphasized that a conditional pardon requires strict compliance with the conditions set forth. If the conditions are violated, the pardon may be revoked, and the original penalty may be re-imposed.

3. Garcia v. The Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009): This case clarified that the pardoning power applies only after final conviction and that the President cannot intervene in the judicial process prior to a final judgment.

V. Policy Considerations

The rationale behind the pardoning power is that it serves as a check on the judiciary and provides a humanitarian safety valve in the criminal justice system. It allows the President to address situations where justice may not have been fully served due to rigid application of the law, errors in judgment, or evolving societal norms.

However, the pardoning power is also a sensitive tool that must be exercised with caution, as it could be perceived as undermining the rule of law if used excessively or for political reasons.

Conclusion

The pardoning power of the President is a significant executive function that provides a degree of flexibility within the criminal justice system. While broad, it is subject to key constitutional limitations to prevent abuses and to preserve the separation of powers among the branches of government. The scope of this power is expansive, but the President must wield it with judicious consideration of its consequences on both public order and private rights.

Declaration of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Extension and Revocation | Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT > C. Powers of the President > 5. Commander-in-Chief Powers > b. Declaration of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Extension and Revocation

Constitutional Basis

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President of the Philippines are provided under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. This section grants the President broad powers to ensure the security of the state, including the power to declare Martial Law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specific conditions.

The relevant portion of the Constitution states:

• "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."

Conditions for Declaration of Martial Law or Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The President may declare Martial Law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only under two specific grounds:

1. Invasion, or
2. Rebellion, and only when public safety requires it.

Thus, the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus are not discretionary powers of the President; they require the existence of actual conditions of invasion or rebellion and the additional requirement that public safety is at risk.

Invasion

Invasion refers to a situation where the sovereignty of the Philippines is under external attack by foreign forces, endangering the integrity of the nation.

Rebellion

Rebellion is defined under the Revised Penal Code (Article 134) as an act involving raising arms against the government for the purpose of removing its allegiance to the State or undermining the government’s authority.

Public Safety

The element of public safety refers to the necessity of protecting the general public from a real and imminent threat to life, property, or public order. It must be a condition present in addition to either invasion or rebellion.

Effect and Scope of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Effect of Martial Law

1. Military Supremacy in Affected Areas: Martial Law imposes a regime of military authority over civilian areas. The military may take control of civil governance in areas declared under Martial Law.
2. Suspension of Certain Civil Rights: Certain civil liberties, including freedom of movement, may be restricted. However, Martial Law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.

It is crucial to emphasize that under Article VII, Section 18, Martial Law does not suspend the Constitution, nor does it supplant civil courts with military tribunals where the civil courts are open and functioning. The rights of civilians, especially those not involved in the rebellion or invasion, remain protected.

Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy against arbitrary detention, and its suspension allows authorities to detain individuals without immediately charging them with a crime.

• The suspension of the writ does not apply to all arrests. It applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected to invasion.
• Those arrested without a judicial charge must be released after three days, even if the privilege of the writ is suspended.

Duration

1. Initial Period: Martial Law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can only last for 60 days from the date of the declaration.
2. Extension: The period may be extended only upon the initiative of the President and with the concurrence of Congress. The President must submit a report to Congress within 48 hours from the declaration, either in person or in writing.
3. Congressional Review: Congress, voting jointly, by a majority vote of all its Members in regular or special session, may either extend or revoke the declaration.
4. Revocation: Congress may revoke the proclamation or suspension, and the President cannot set aside this revocation.
5. Supreme Court Review: Any citizen may question the sufficiency of the factual basis for Martial Law or the suspension of the writ before the Supreme Court, which must rule on the matter within 30 days from the filing of a petition.

Congressional Powers

1. Automatic Convening: Upon the declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Congress must automatically convene within 24 hours to consider the proclamation or suspension, even if Congress is not in session.
2. Authority to Revoke or Extend: Congress, through a majority vote of all its Members voting jointly, may either revoke or extend the proclamation or suspension. If revoked, the President cannot override this decision. If extended, Congress determines the period of extension.

Judicial Review

1. Review by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has the authority to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. Filing a Petition: Any citizen can file a petition questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis for Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court is mandated to decide the matter within 30 days from the filing of the petition.

Extension and Revocation

• Extension: As noted earlier, Congress may extend Martial Law or the suspension of the writ upon the President's initiative. There is no limit to how long an extension may last, provided that Congress deems it necessary and votes to approve it.

• Revocation: Congress may revoke Martial Law or the suspension of the writ at any time by a majority vote of all its members voting jointly. Once revoked, the President cannot override this revocation. Moreover, if the Supreme Court finds the factual basis insufficient, it may also nullify the proclamation.

Restrictions

• No Indefinite Martial Law: Martial Law cannot last indefinitely. While the initial declaration is limited to 60 days, it can only be extended upon approval of Congress.
• Civilian Supremacy: Civilian authority must remain supreme even during Martial Law, and the Constitution’s provisions remain in effect, especially those protecting basic rights.
• No Suspension of Judicial Processes: Even under Martial Law, the judicial processes of the country continue to function, except in places where military rule is necessary due to the breakdown of law and order. Civil courts that are operational should not be supplanted by military courts.

Historical Precedents

1. Proclamation No. 1081 (1972): Former President Ferdinand Marcos placed the Philippines under Martial Law, citing threats of communist rebellion and lawlessness. This period was marked by widespread human rights violations, emphasizing the potential dangers of unchecked Martial Law powers.

2. 2017 Mindanao Martial Law: President Rodrigo Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao in response to the Marawi siege by the Maute group, citing rebellion. This was extended multiple times by Congress, but remained limited to the Mindanao region and did not encompass the entire Philippines.

Conclusion

The Commander-in-Chief powers of the President, particularly the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, are extraordinary measures that are constitutionally confined to specific circumstances—namely invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it. The 1987 Constitution provides safeguards such as judicial and legislative checks to prevent abuse of these powers. The Philippine legal framework ensures that even in times of crisis, the rule of law prevails, and civil liberties are not unduly trampled.

Calling Out Powers | Commander-in-Chief Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Commander-in-Chief Powers: Calling Out Powers of the President

The President of the Philippines, as Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, is granted various powers under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, one of which is the calling out power. This is the first in a series of Commander-in-Chief powers, progressively increasing in gravity, which also include the power to declare martial law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The calling out power is the most benign of these powers but nonetheless critical in ensuring peace, security, and public order.

I. Constitutional Basis

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution states:

"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion."

II. Nature and Scope of the Calling Out Power

The calling out power allows the President to mobilize the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to address specific situations of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. It is the most flexible of the Commander-in-Chief powers because it does not require a formal declaration or approval from other branches of government. Thus, its use lies within the executive discretion of the President and is intended as a swift and immediate response to emergent situations that threaten public order and national security.

1. Lawless Violence

This refers to instances where the public order is endangered by acts of violence that cannot be controlled by ordinary law enforcement agencies. For instance, widespread rioting, acts of terrorism, or serious civil disturbances may justify the calling out of the AFP to augment the police and other civilian authorities.

2. Invasion

The calling out power can also be invoked in the event of actual or imminent foreign aggression, wherein the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines are at risk.

3. Rebellion

Rebellion involves an organized and armed resistance against the authority of the state, and the President can call out the AFP to quash such uprisings to maintain public order and the rule of law.

III. Judicial Review and Limitations

While the calling out power is a discretionary power of the President, it is not immune to judicial review, although the scope of review is extremely limited. The Supreme Court can only inquire into the factual basis of the President's decision, particularly to determine whether there exists sufficient factual justification for the calling out of the armed forces. However, courts will generally defer to the executive's decision on the matter, as it involves national security concerns.

The leading case on this is "David v. Arroyo" (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006), where the Supreme Court ruled that the President’s calling out power is not subject to the same constraints as the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the calling out power is within the executive's discretionary authority and is generally considered a preventive measure against greater threats to public safety and security.

In the case of "Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary" (G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004), the Supreme Court also affirmed that the judiciary has limited power to review the calling out of the military by the President unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

IV. Procedural Distinctions from Martial Law and Suspension of Habeas Corpus

The calling out power is distinct from the powers to declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Notably, the latter two require the presence of actual invasion or rebellion, and in such cases, public safety must also require the declaration. Additionally, martial law and the suspension of the writ are subject to constitutional safeguards, such as a limited period, the requirement of a report to Congress, and the possibility of judicial review. In contrast, the calling out power does not have these procedural constraints. It is viewed as an initial, preventive measure designed to manage less severe disturbances that do not yet necessitate the more extreme measures of martial law or suspension of habeas corpus.

V. Executive Discretion

The calling out power provides the President considerable discretion, as it does not involve the formalities and checks associated with martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. However, this also means that it is designed to be a more measured response, appropriate for situations that require immediate but not draconian intervention. The Supreme Court, in David v. Arroyo, emphasized that the President's judgment in calling out the armed forces is accorded great respect unless it is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.

VI. Limitations on the Use of Military Force

While the President can call out the armed forces, the use of military power is limited by civilian supremacy and must adhere to constitutional principles. The President cannot use the military for purposes beyond the suppression of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution enshrines the principle of civilian authority over the military. The military must always act in support of civilian authorities, such as the police, and cannot supplant civilian functions.

The military may only act as an auxiliary force to assist civil authorities when civilian powers are insufficient to restore order or security. Thus, the AFP cannot take over ordinary law enforcement functions except in extreme circumstances where the safety of the public is gravely threatened.

VII. Notable Applications

Historically, the calling out power has been invoked by Presidents in situations involving serious threats to national security or public order:

• President Fidel V. Ramos invoked the calling out power during the coup attempts in the early 1990s.
• President Joseph Estrada called out the AFP in response to the 2000 Mindanao crisis involving the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
• President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a “State of National Emergency” in 2006, invoking the calling out power to quell widespread lawless violence following an alleged coup attempt.
• President Rodrigo Duterte used the calling out power several times, notably in responding to the Marawi Siege in 2017 and declaring a state of lawlessness in the aftermath of the Davao City bombing in 2016.

VIII. Conclusion

The calling out power of the President is an essential component of the Commander-in-Chief powers, providing the executive with a flexible tool to address threats to public order without the need for more extreme measures like martial law. It is subject to minimal judicial scrutiny and is primarily within the President's discretion. However, the use of this power is still constrained by constitutional principles of civilian supremacy, proportionality, and respect for fundamental rights. The calling out power is intended to preserve the balance between maintaining order and protecting the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that military intervention remains a last resort in maintaining peace and security.

Emergency Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT (Philippine Legal Context)

Under the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the President is vested with various powers, including emergency powers. These powers allow the President to address extraordinary situations, such as war, national emergency, or widespread calamities, by exercising authority that may ordinarily rest with other branches of government. However, these powers are limited by constitutional and statutory safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure accountability.

Constitutional Basis

The President’s emergency powers are grounded in Article VI, Section 23(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

"In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof."

This provision gives the President temporary extraordinary powers but only under specific circumstances and subject to congressional approval.

Conditions for Granting Emergency Powers

Emergency powers may be exercised only under the following conditions:

1. Existence of War or National Emergency: Congress must recognize that a situation of war or national emergency exists, which requires the use of emergency powers. National emergencies include economic crises, natural calamities, pandemics, or armed conflicts that severely disrupt the normal functions of government and society.

2. Congressional Authorization: Congress must pass a law that explicitly authorizes the President to exercise emergency powers. This law must clearly define:

   • The specific powers being granted to the President.
   • The scope and limitations of those powers.
   • The duration of such powers (limited period).
   • Any restrictions or conditions Congress deems necessary to safeguard public interests and prevent abuses.

3. Time-Bound Nature: The grant of emergency powers is only for a limited period. The law must specify the duration, and unless withdrawn sooner, these powers automatically cease upon the next adjournment of Congress.

4. Congressional Oversight and Withdrawal: Congress retains the power to withdraw the emergency powers at any time by passing a resolution. This serves as a check on the President to ensure that such powers are not perpetuated unnecessarily.

Scope and Limitations of Emergency Powers

The exercise of emergency powers allows the President to take swift and decisive action to address the emergency situation, but these powers are not absolute. There are specific limitations:

1. Constitutional Limits: Even during a national emergency, the President must respect the Constitution. Fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech, press, and assembly, cannot be arbitrarily curtailed unless expressly justified under national security or public safety concerns, as determined by the courts.

2. Legislative Delegation: Congress retains primary legislative power. The President cannot assume the power to legislate but can only implement measures authorized by law. The delegation must be precise, ensuring the President does not overstep the scope of powers granted.

3. Judicial Review: Actions taken by the President under emergency powers are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court may review the validity of laws and executive actions to determine whether they exceed the powers granted by Congress or violate constitutional rights.

4. Fiscal Powers: Under emergency powers, the President may reallocate funds or impose controls over resources to address the crisis, but these actions must comply with the constitutional provision on the use of public funds. Congressional authorization is necessary for any substantial reallocation or use of public funds.

Historical Context

Several instances in Philippine history have seen the invocation of emergency powers:

1. World War II: During the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, the emergency powers of the President were invoked to mobilize resources and maintain government functions under extremely difficult conditions.

2. Martial Law under President Ferdinand Marcos: While not strictly an exercise of emergency powers under Article VI, Section 23(2), President Marcos declared martial law in 1972, using his powers under the old 1935 Constitution. This event is often associated with the abuse of executive power, which underscores the importance of limitations and oversight.

3. Power Crisis in the 1990s: President Fidel V. Ramos was granted emergency powers to address the severe energy crisis that crippled the country. The Electric Power Crisis Act of 1993 (Republic Act No. 7648) gave the President authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for the purchase of additional power supplies, bypassing certain procedural constraints.

4. COVID-19 Pandemic: In March 2020, Congress passed Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act), which granted President Rodrigo Duterte emergency powers to address the COVID-19 pandemic. These powers allowed the President to:

   • Realign the national budget to prioritize pandemic response.
   • Mandate public and private hospitals to accommodate COVID-19 patients.
   • Regulate transportation and essential services.
   • Impose quarantines and lockdowns.

Statutory Provisions on Emergency Powers

Several laws provide the framework for the President's exercise of emergency powers. Apart from the constitutional provision, these laws also guide the procedures and limitations:

1. Republic Act No. 11332 (Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act): This law was invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic and gives the President the power to declare a public health emergency and exercise necessary measures to control the outbreak.

2. Republic Act No. 11709 (The National Defense Act): This law provides that in times of war or emergency, the President may call upon the Armed Forces to carry out emergency functions.

3. Republic Act No. 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010): This law empowers the President to declare a state of calamity and direct the use of government resources to assist affected areas.

Comparison to Martial Law Powers

Emergency powers are distinct from the President’s power to declare martial law. While both are invoked during national emergencies, the emergency powers under Article VI, Section 23(2) require Congressional authorization. In contrast, martial law can be declared directly by the President under Article VII, Section 18, subject to congressional review and Supreme Court oversight.

• Emergency Powers: Generally used for specific, time-bound situations to address crises like economic collapse or natural disasters. Legislative approval is required, and there are precise limits on scope and duration.

• Martial Law: Involves a broader scope, potentially including the suspension of civil rights and the use of the military to control civilian government. While Congress and the courts can review martial law, it is initially declared by the President.

Conclusion

Emergency powers are a critical tool for the President of the Philippines to address significant crises but must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and with appropriate checks and balances. Congressional oversight, judicial review, and clear limitations on the scope and duration of such powers ensure that they are used for the benefit of the public and not as a means for executive overreach. The historical context of their use in the Philippines, from power crises to pandemics, underscores the necessity of these powers while also reminding us of the importance of safeguarding democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Local Government Units (LGU) | Power of Control and Supervision | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

---

C. Powers of the President

---

3. Power of Control and Supervision

---

c. Local Government Units (LGU)

The powers of the President over Local Government Units (LGUs) are delineated under the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence. This concerns the critical distinction between the power of control and the power of supervision, the President's authority in relation to LGUs, and the limitations placed on executive intervention in local governance. Let’s examine each in detail:

1. Power of Control vs. Power of Supervision

Control refers to the power to alter or modify decisions made by subordinates and to direct the manner in which they perform their functions, whereas supervision is merely the authority to ensure that such subordinates act within the law.

• Control: When a superior officer exercises control over a subordinate, they can substitute their judgment for that of the subordinate, reverse or modify decisions, or even exercise the power themselves.

• Supervision: This is a more limited power, confined to ensuring that laws are faithfully executed. In supervision, the superior officer can only intervene if there is a violation of law or abuse of discretion.

In the context of LGUs, the President does not have control but only supervision, as provided for under the 1987 Constitution.

2. Constitutional Framework

Article X, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution clearly provides that:

"The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments."

This provision establishes that the President's relationship with LGUs is supervisory, not one of control. This limitation is a manifestation of the principle of local autonomy, which is constitutionally recognized and protected.

• Local Autonomy: Local government autonomy allows LGUs to govern themselves with minimal interference from the national government. It aims to decentralize power and enhance accountability and responsiveness to local needs.

3. Statutory Basis - Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)

The Local Government Code of 1991 further operationalizes the supervisory role of the President over LGUs. The Code empowers LGUs to manage their affairs within the bounds of the law and grants them considerable discretion in decision-making, including the power to generate revenues, legislate local policies, and implement development programs.

• Section 25 of the Local Government Code expressly states that the President shall exercise general supervision over LGUs "to ensure that the acts of their chief executives and other local officials are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions."

• Section 4 further underscores local autonomy, stipulating that "no rules or regulations shall diminish the autonomy of local governments."

Thus, the President cannot encroach upon the functions or operations of LGUs unless they act in violation of law.

4. Scope of the President's Supervision over LGUs

The President’s supervisory powers are limited to ensuring compliance with national laws. This is operationalized through mechanisms such as:

• Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG): The DILG is the primary agency that ensures LGUs follow laws, policies, and directives from the national government. It provides guidance and monitors LGUs' adherence to legal frameworks.

• Oversight Functions: Through the DILG, the President may:

  • Review and approve budgets of LGUs.
  • Ensure compliance with laws in LGU ordinances, decisions, and actions.
  • Suspend or remove local officials in cases of gross misconduct, abuse of authority, or violation of law, as prescribed by the Local Government Code.

However, the President cannot dictate policy or interfere in purely local matters unless there is a clear breach of law.

5. Grounds for Intervention by the President

The Constitution and law allow for Presidential intervention in LGU affairs under certain circumstances. These include:

• Illegality of LGU Acts: The President may step in if an LGU enacts measures or policies contrary to the law. For instance, local ordinances that conflict with national statutes may be struck down after review.

• Gross Misconduct or Abuse of Authority: The President can initiate actions against local officials guilty of gross misconduct or abuse of authority. The Local Government Code provides mechanisms for the suspension or removal of erring officials, subject to the procedural requirements outlined in the law (e.g., due process, investigation).

• Emergency Powers and Takeover: In extreme cases, such as during a national emergency, the President can take over certain functions of local governments to preserve public safety and order. This is permissible under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution but must meet stringent requirements, such as ensuring it is for the duration of the emergency.

6. Limitations on the Power of Supervision

While the President has the power to ensure LGU compliance with the law, this power is subject to limitations:

• No Substitution of Judgment: The President, through the DILG or other means, cannot substitute his or her judgment for that of local officials in matters within the LGU's discretion. This principle prevents the overreach of national power into local governance.

• Due Process Requirements: Any attempt to suspend or remove local officials must follow strict procedural rules, including due notice, the opportunity for the official to defend themselves, and a fair hearing. The process is outlined in the Local Government Code.

• Decentralization and Autonomy: The principle of decentralization restricts the national government's interference in purely local matters, reinforcing the LGU's autonomy in areas such as budgeting, legislative powers, and local development. The national government can only intervene to correct violations of law or abuse of discretion.

7. Jurisprudence on Presidential Supervision Over LGUs

Jurisprudence has clarified and reaffirmed the supervisory nature of the President's powers over LGUs:

• Ganzon v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 93252, 1991): The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between control and supervision, ruling that the President's power over LGUs is merely supervisory. This means that while the President may ensure that LGUs comply with the law, he or she cannot dictate or overrule discretionary decisions within the LGU's jurisdiction.

• Dadole v. COA (G.R. No. 125350, 1998): The Court reiterated that local governments enjoy local autonomy under the Constitution and the Local Government Code, and the President’s role is confined to ensuring that their actions comply with the law.

• Pimentel v. Aguirre (G.R. No. 132988, 2000): This case struck down the national government's attempt to unilaterally impose restrictions on the use of LGU funds without legislative authority. The Court underscored that the President could not interfere in LGU budgeting processes absent a legal basis.

8. Summary

The President of the Philippines exercises supervision but not control over Local Government Units (LGUs). This supervisory power is limited to ensuring compliance with national laws and regulations, but it does not extend to dictating policies or decisions on purely local matters. LGUs enjoy considerable autonomy under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991, which protects them from undue interference by the national government.

The President may only intervene in LGU affairs in specific instances, such as violations of law, gross misconduct, abuse of authority, or national emergencies. This framework ensures a balance between local autonomy and national oversight, preventing over-centralization of power while maintaining legal compliance across different levels of government.

The jurisprudential backdrop reinforces the President's limited role in LGU governance, underscoring the importance of decentralization and local autonomy in the Philippine system of governance.

Executive Departments and Offices | Power of Control and Supervision | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

3. Power of Control and Supervision

b. Executive Departments and Offices

---

The power of control and supervision over executive departments and offices is a key aspect of the powers of the President under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This power ensures the President’s ability to effectively enforce laws and manage the operations of the executive branch. A clear distinction between "control" and "supervision" has been established both in constitutional law and jurisprudence.

1. Power of Control

The power of control is the broader of the two powers. It refers to the authority of the President to alter, modify, reverse, or nullify actions or decisions of subordinates within the executive branch. In the Philippines, this power is grounded in Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which states that:

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

This constitutional provision grants the President full control over all officials and employees within the executive department, unless the Constitution itself or a law expressly provides otherwise.

Key aspects of the power of control include:

• Comprehensive authority: The President has full and plenary power to direct the actions of all executive officers. This means the President can substitute his or her judgment for that of the subordinate, and the President can step in to personally perform an act that the subordinate is empowered to perform.

• Hierarchy in the Executive Department: The President’s control flows down the hierarchy of executive officials. Department Secretaries, for example, act as the alter egos of the President. Their actions are presumed to be in accordance with the President’s directives, but the President has the power to modify or reverse these actions.

• Delegation of Control: While the President has the ultimate control over the executive branch, many functions are delegated to heads of departments or agencies. The delegation of authority does not dilute the President's power, as the President may still exercise direct control over the subordinate's actions.

• Limits: The President’s power of control does not extend to independent constitutional commissions (e.g., the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, and the Commission on Elections) or other offices and bodies which the Constitution expressly provides to be independent.

Jurisprudence on Control

Several Supreme Court rulings have clarified the scope of the President's control:

• Villena v. Secretary of the Interior (1939): The Court held that the President’s control is the authority to substitute his or her judgment for that of the subordinate, and it extends to correcting errors and reversing acts of subordinate officials.

• Lacson-Magallanes Co. v. Paño (1986): The Court clarified that control includes the power to annul, reverse, or modify the acts and decisions of subordinates. The President’s control is total, unqualified, and direct over all executive officials.

2. Power of Supervision

The power of supervision, on the other hand, is more limited. It refers to the authority of the President to oversee the actions of subordinates to ensure that they are compliant with the law, but it does not include the authority to substitute one's judgment for that of the subordinate. Supervision involves ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, but it stops short of direct control.

Supervision is fundamentally passive, with the supervising authority stepping in only when the law is violated or the subordinate acts beyond the scope of their powers.

Jurisprudence on Supervision

• Mondano v. Silvosa (1955): The Supreme Court distinguished between control and supervision, holding that control implies the authority to alter or reverse decisions of subordinates, while supervision only means overseeing and ensuring that the law is followed, without intervening in the subordinate's exercise of discretion.

• Pimentel v. Aguirre (2000): This case further delineated the boundaries between control and supervision. The President was held to have control over executive officials and supervision over local governments. Supervision meant ensuring compliance with the law without the power to modify or substitute decisions of local government officials.

3. Application of Control and Supervision to Executive Departments and Offices

The President's powers of control and supervision extend over various executive departments and offices. These departments, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Finance (DOF), Department of Education (DepEd), and other agencies, are directly accountable to the President. Their actions, decisions, and policies can be reviewed, modified, or reversed by the President.

• Department Secretaries: As alter egos of the President, department secretaries act in the President's name and authority. The presumption of regularity applies to their actions, but the President retains the authority to override or reverse their decisions.

• Administrative Agencies: Many administrative agencies and regulatory bodies, while having specific mandates under law, also fall under the President's power of control. However, certain agencies, particularly those created by special laws with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions, may operate with a degree of independence but remain subject to the President's general supervision.

Exception: Independent Constitutional Bodies

Certain offices are constitutionally independent and are not subject to the President's control or supervision, such as:

• Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
• Civil Service Commission (CSC)
• Commission on Audit (COA)

These bodies are insulated from executive interference to maintain impartiality and independence in their functions.

Conclusion

The President’s power of control over executive departments and offices is one of the most potent tools for ensuring the faithful execution of the law and maintaining the orderly functioning of the executive branch. The distinction between control and supervision is critical in delineating the President’s authority over officials within the executive branch and other independent bodies. Control grants the President full authority to direct the actions of subordinates, while supervision limits the President to ensuring that the law is followed without intervening in decisions or substituting discretion.